It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Charles Darwin was mentally ill

page: 20
50
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by lifecitizen
Okay, so are you saying people who don't believe they are a spiritual being suffer neurosis?
I hadnt heard the term before, thanks for that.
What are some of the cross over points?


A part of spiritual education in many schools is being able to handle emotions and overcome negativity. Hinduism offers a vast array of techniques of yoga and meditation. Buddhism offers meditation and mantras. Christianity and Judaism and Islam offer prayers and rules-to-live-by and even eating habits.

The mystical versions of these Religions offer ways to directly experience higher realms. Neurosis and Psychosis cannot exist in such frequencies.

Spiritual perception is squashed by dumbed-down by the way schooling of children has worked for thousands of years and continues to work today.


Despite religious myths there is no evidence we are spiritual beings or that there are 'higher realms' and I don't agree with your assertion that people who lack spirituality suffer neurosis.
Is emotional illness the same as mental illness?




posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by lifecitizen
Despite religious myths there is no evidence we are spiritual beings or that there are 'higher realms'


"There is no evidence"? By whose standards? How are physical tools supposed to measure non-physical-realities?



I don't agree with your assertion that people who lack spirituality suffer neurosis.


Most wouldnt agree with that. I wouldnt expect them too.




Is emotional illness the same as mental illness?


I use them interchangably.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
I personally can not believe that a persons mental or physical well being is dependant on their previous actions.


This statement is the basis of an age-old conflict between two opposing forces. One side does not believe that their thoughts and actions have consequences, the other side does. Im of the "other side".



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Ah yes, its only my judgement that he was ill. Or like another poster put it: "Mental Illness is only a label"

By those standards I could go on a killing spree and if someone judged me because of it I could say "Its not true that Im crazy. Its only in your judgement. Dont label me or discriminate against me"


No you would have committed a legal offence as defined by the society to which you belonged and would therefore be judged under the law of that society, mental illness or not, those laws are defined. Darwin did not commit a legal crime, an ideological one in some people's eyes perhaps, but that is in no way comparable to the example you provide, ideas, especially not those that break ground, are not defined by law. Should you claim mental illness as a defence for murder then the burden of proof lies with medical professionals, and as is often the case, as in your judgement of Darwin, that can be just as subjective, either way, you have still committed murder and will still be excluded from society because you are unable to live by the 'rules' of the majority, either until a point when you can be judged culpable, or until you die. Either way, a very poor comparison, Darwin did no harm to others, your murders did. Claiming mental impairment in no way absolves you from your crime, just as mental illness in no way detracts from Darwin's brilliance. He was brilliant, in spite of, his weaknesses, not because of, and therefore his theoretical perspective is unchanged by that mental illness, or lack thereof.



Darwin was an inspiration for both Hitler and Stalin, two of the greatest mass-murderers of all time.


Himmler was inspired by Buddhism. Your point?



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by riley

Trying to discredit a scientist by calling him mentally ill?


Trying? No, not trying. Succeeding.


From perusing the thread, I think you did succeed at discrediting something. But it doesn't look like it was at discrediting one of the most revolutionary scientists in history.

I'm not sure I'm allowed to note what I think you did achieve, I hear the ban-hammer has been dusted off. You see, a scientist can be an a-hole, psychopath, maudlin, neurotic, sentimentalist, paranoid conspiricist, emotional and/or social leper, manic depressive, narcissist, racist, and/or bigot and so on. They can even be fervently religious and pray for magical intervention in their experiments - however, the quality of their science is actually determined by its empirical veracity.

In the normal compassionate world, this also often applies outside of science. Thus, Churchill had real issues with the black dog, but here in the UK we tend to have a compassionate stance for such issues and appreciate his fantastic statesmanship during a testing period of our history.

The small-minded bigoted sociopath might want to belittle his efforts, of course.

[edit on 27-6-2010 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
I'm not sure I'm allowed to note what I think you did achieve, I hear the ban-hammer has been dusted off.


Ive never suggested that those who disagree with me be banned. Its a fantasy by many here, a complete misperception of my role in this thread as a member. Indeed there are some on my friends-list who disagree with me to the point of fury.

When one leaves the stages of infantilism and cognition improves, one realizes that those who disagree with their view of the world are not enemies that will ban them but merely other human beings with views different than their own.



The small-minded bigoted sociopath might want to belittle his efforts, of course.


Nice indirect way of communicating without having to break the T&C.




Originally posted by melatonin
You see, a scientist can be an a-hole, psychopath, maudlin, neurotic, sentimentalist, paranoid conspiricist, emotional and/or social leper, manic depressive, narcissist, racist, and/or bigot and so on. They can even be fervently religious and pray for magical intervention in their experiments - however, the quality of their science is actually determined by its empirical veracity.


In reality a psychopath may sound intelligent, look intelligent, appear intelligent, and the world may believe him but that does not make what he says valid.

The crowds are too easily impressed by what appears to look like the work of a "genius"


edit on by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The crowds are too easily impressed by what appears to look like the work of a "genius"


edit on by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



In science, it doesn't matter. Much like on ATS, the background doesn't matter, I'm sure it's the robustness of the ideas that count. The work of a genius is determined by its contribution, not personal issues.

It really is as simple as that. All you have shown is that science is very tolerant of personal issues, weakness, and failings. Whereas I'm not sure that same applies for yourself. In science, we can even validate the ramblings of a true psychotic; the real strength of science - it always comes down to evidence.

You see, Darwin was a person who threw out a few great ideas. He also threw out some naff ideas. Those great ideas have been taken on by those who followed, their revolutionary nature and unquestionable contribution to our understanding of nature are held at the level of respect they deserve - by both religious and irreligious.

The fact he had what we might currently label major depressive disorder is of absolutely no consequence to the scientific value of his ideas. Did he suffer from MDD? Possibly.

Similarly, the fact that Newton also played with magic also does not alter his contribution to science. Because it always comes down to the evidence.

And the attempt to discredit his contribution because he appears to have suffered from depression is more a reflection on your position. It shows that you have nothing to actually contradict his ideas.

Indeed, although the term is often thrown around willy-nilly, this is the first actual argumentum ad-hominem I've seen on ATS. Well done.

There should be a medal for that achievement.


Originally posted by Skyfloating
Ive never suggested that those who disagree with me be banned. Its a fantasy by many here, a complete misperception of my role in this thread as a member. Indeed there are some on my friends-list who disagree with me to the point of fury.


I never said you suggested anything of the sort.


[edit on 27-6-2010 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

And the attempt to discredit his contribution because he appears to have suffered from depression is more a reflection on your position. It shows that you have nothing to actually contradict his ideas.



Actually first I had dismissed his ideas and then only later found the explanation of why they were as dumb as they were. And by dumb I dont only mean contradictory but near mentally-challenged.

Any person even only slightly in touch with reality realizes he does not know the "origin of species", much less his own origin.



Indeed, although the term is often thrown around willy-nilly, this is one of the first actual argumentum ad-hominem I've seen on ATS. Well done.


It may be the first thread that purposefully attacks someones character in an eye-for-an-eye, yes.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Actually first I had dismissed his ideas and then only later found the explanation of why they were as dumb as they were. And by dumb I dont only mean contradictory but near mentally-challenged.

Any person even only slightly in touch with reality realizes he does not know the "origin of species", much less his own origin.


:rolleyes:

Jeez, I see the quality of argument hasn't changed much in this subforum.


It may be the first thread that purposefully attacks someones character in an eye-for-an-eye, yes.


Perhaps you might want to school yourself on the meaning of argumentum ad-hominem.

You can attack him merely for his (potential) depression - not really an ad-hom. That just reflects on your character. The ad-hom is actually due to the rather pathetic attempt to devalue his argument purely due to his depression.

I suggest an 18-carat gold-plated shovel as the award, would be pretty fitting.

[edit on 27-6-2010 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


If Darwin had taught you the origin of species, you could tell me your origin in one sentence just like I could tell you the origin of a building or a piece of food.


edit on by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
If Darwin had taught you the origin of species, you could tell me your origin in one sentence just like I could tell you the origin of a building or a piece of food.

But you cant. Its, as of now, a complete mystery.


However, I tend to rely on evidence.

The potential mad-man Darwin presented evidence for his ideas. Moreover, over 100 years of science has further verified and consolidated his basic evolutionary ideas with evidence.

In contrast, your ideas are still at the level of the ranting mad-man. So when you state that "as of now, a complete mystery" in the context of evolutionary biology, I'll just regard that as dumb.

Anyway, although you provide many lulz the football is calling. Caio.

Have fun digging.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


And I have already proven that Darwin was doing fine spiritually, your point has been debunked. Are you still carrying on that Darwin was wrong becuase he didn't believe EXACTLY as you do?

If that is the case, other scientists that were not religous are
Thomas Edison.

So does that mean every time I see a movie or turnon the light bulb in my house, it is not real because Edison was an athiest?

Same with Johannes Gutenberg,Isaac Newton ,James Watson,Stephen Hawking. In fact, the majority of those in science and inventors are athiests.


But here you are, starting a thread on a computer, with a part that could of been designed by a satan worshipper for all you know. But it works.


And a person suffering from mental illness is perfectly capable of being productive.

Beethoven,Isaac Newton,Hemmingway,Winston Churchhill,all suffered from bipolar disorder.

So how many times do you have to be disproven before you let it go?



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Anyway, although you provide many lulz the football is calling. Caio. (sic)


No, Football is more important. And look how it unites even us. Ciao.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
No, Football is more important. And look how it unites even us. Ciao.


Cool.

What also might untie (sic) us is the possibility that some mindfulness-style therapy would have helped Darwin's condition.

Of course, in 'modern' psychology we're removing all the useless theological fluff. Gets in the way of a good therapy, you see.

1-0 to Deutschland, by the way.

ABE: Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles...2-0

[edit on 27-6-2010 by melatonin]


+1 more 
posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
If I may say a few words about mental illness, emotional disturbances, and organic brain syndrome. These are not under the same umbrella. It is unwise to say "I will consider these all as one, for simplification".

I'm not here to discuss creationism vs. evolution, only to simply offer some clarification to otherwise erroneous conceptualizations about what depression and anxiety are.

Depression is a mood disorder, and there are several different types. Some more hard-hitting, and longer lasting than others. It does not affect one's intellectual capacity on the whole, but can in some instances. Let me explain.

Consider you were an expert in .... oh any example will do....say, physics.
I could present you with an examination of the subject matter, and you would score 100%.

Now, you have a depressive episode. I could present you with the same test. You are still intellectually capable of scoring 100%. However, you now refuse to take the test. You are too tired, and don't want to be bothered with it. You might even say "it's a waste of time". You prefer to sleep, isolate yourself, and not be bothered with something you have studied which now seems so completely ridiculous. You might feel inadequate to take the test. You might think the test is stupid. You might think you are stupid, to ever have begun such an endeavor.

Hm. Three weeks go by, and your depressive episode diminishes. You come out of your fog, realize your work is meritorious and again you are compelled to study, and take the aforementioned examination, on which you do well.

Your depressive episode has not affected your intellectual capacity. It has only affected your mood.

There are several different types of depression, and more information would be needed to determine which type he had. He seemed to have a great deal of anxiety also, but again, this would not affect intellectual functioning, but again is an anxiety disorder. Although most anxiety attacks, panic attacks, are short lived, there is a longer lasting "generalized anxiety disorder", which can be completely debilitating, and these are the folks who don't want to leave the house, etc.
Everything provokes an anxiety attack.

Other symptoms given in the OP tend to support physical ailments, such as inner-ear difficulties, veritgo, etc. ; and would only affect one's work when he was fully symptomatic.

The psychoses can gravely limit one's functioning, as the person has a thought disorder, and would find it difficult to separate what is real from other internal stimuli. These are the most frustrated people in the world, because they realize this. They have difficulty developing confidence in their conclusions, for this and other reasons.

Organic Brain Syndrome means there is actually something physically wrong with the organ itself, and it does not function like others in some ways. This varies in severity, depending on what's going on inside the organ (brain) and what the damage or lack of development consists of.

There is no evidence to support that Darwin had a thought disorder, and obviously he didn't have an OBS, or what you might call mental retardation, (although I personally no longer use that term, it has become too colloquial) and bears a rather disparaging insinuation.

So with the assumed absence of a thought disorder or an OBS, then we can conclude that he possibly had a mood disorder, with which he was frequently asymptomatic, or he would have lacked the drive and motivation to complete such a work, theory, as he did.

We can look at history, and see many famous writers and artists who had frequent bouts of depression. Some ended their lives in suicide, because they couldn't face another episode.

Now both these conditions, depression and anxiety, are for the most part so easily treatable.

My point is, although there are many who hold Darwin's theory unreliable and erroneous, which is fine, the point remains that any issues you have with it may not be attributed to "mental illness".

.....and that's the truth.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ladyinwaiting
 


Very well put and am thankful you have made the distinction between mood disorder and other impairments of the brain. Even if Darwin had considered suicide, it in no way has a bearing on the validity of his work. Up against the established norms of his time, I can see why he might have been a little depressed.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


This is quite a thread you've started Sky!

However, I am troubled by your premise that any psychological problems that Darwin may have had should somehow refute his work regarding evolution.

There are many spiritual people that suffer from the same types of mental and emotional problems that Darwin is alleged to have experienced.

Take the work of famed mathematician and Nobel Laureate, John Nash, for example. His work is brilliant and many of his ideas have influenced other areas of academics such as economics, computer science and biology.

Does that make his work any less viable?

I think not. We are all human, and as a result, are susceptible to the same range of emotional, mental and psychological problems that are part of the human condition.

To suggest that evolutionary science should be disregarded because Darwin may have suffered from some form of psychological distress is simply ridiculous.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ladyinwaiting
 


Thats a very good post ladyinwaiting.


(I´ll have to respond some other time, due to football and RL after that - but respond I will)



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Thank you! Mind you, I'm in my element here, so I'm ready for ya Sky!



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by lifecitizen
Mentally ill or not, I will still believe in Darwins theory of evolution as opposed to a invisible magic sky fairy that is coming back to save us.

Intelligent people can't suffer from neurosis? is it limited to dumb people?


I never heard of a religion with an invisible sky fairyCan you elaborate on that more, or would that press the issue getting you to be more specific about what your real intention to insult a group of people for their beliefs?

Don't sugar coat it, take a real stand, have some guts man. Don't hide behind cutsey sarcasm and terminology you had to borrow from so called "free thinkers" and just call everyone who isn't an atheist "stupid". does that about sum YOU up. Soon atheists will kill free speech and that "free thought" they can't seem to find unless they read it from another religion hating website, will evolve into the belief police ignoring their own imbecilic beliefs evolution being one of them



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join