?

Log in

No account? Create an account

philobate

new topic (i'm on a roll)

« previous entry | next entry »
Feb. 28th, 2005 | 10:59 pm
sentiment: calmcalm
sound: overrated - three days grace
posted by: lolweasel in philobate

okay. so what constitutes as insanity? what makes a person insane? is it a matter of relativity? if society makes a shift so that things which were once normal or once weren't now are(n't), does that change the measurement of sanity? is it ethical to use such relative terms to determine a person's mental state?

entry | Leave a comment |

Comments {4}

Sasha

[[unnamed]]

from: magicflyingpig
date: Mar. 1st, 2005 11:34 am (UTC)
entry

i'm not sure. i've kinda been thinking about that sort of thing, what's makes a person mental ill and such and whether anyone really can be mentally ill. the whole thing is based on our perception of how human's should be right? so if someone doesn't fit that perception we assume they are "ill" in some way and give them meds to "fix" them. but i'm not sure you really can.

RSVP | Thread

[[unnamed]]

from: hatredheals
date: Mar. 3rd, 2005 11:23 pm (UTC)
entry

To me, it means a problem with chemical imballances (depression, mania, anxiety) or something like schizophrenia. Thing is, chemical imballanes can happen to anyone. You can be more prone to it than someone else, but it's a process. Every time you get high or low, it becomes easier to get to that point the next time. So does that mean everyone is insane or has the potential for it? Or are you only insane when it becomes inconvenient? Then there's the whole issue of schizphrenia and things with sensory intake and thinking processes... but then what about colourblindness, autism, down sindrome... it's a compliated question, I'm looking forward to the responses of others. Is it purely psychological and biological, or can insanity be something of a social nature as well?

RSVP | Thread

[[unnamed]]

from: masstragedy
date: Mar. 4th, 2005 04:45 am (UTC)
entry

this is something i've been thinking about lately... it seems to me that as of late anti-depressants have become rather popular, i wonder if half of these people actually have a chemical inbalance or if taking these drugs is just more convenient... why are people so hesitant to deal with depression?

RSVP | Parent | Thread

[[unnamed]]

from: hatredheals
date: Mar. 4th, 2005 05:36 am (UTC)
entry

Depression ~is~ a chemical imbalance however. It might be temporary or chronic, but it is a chemical imbalance - more specifically low seratonin levels. When you're talking about dealing with depression, yes you need to adress the social and moral roots of that imbalance, whether it's your family life or drugs or something else. But when your seratonin levels are messed on a continuous basis, then drugs can help. Every time you get low, it gets easier to get that low again. The drugs don't make you happy but they do neutralize you or ballance you out. They help to break the pattern. Some problems I see however are that people start thinking of depression purely in terms of chemicals and mental diseases. The things happening in their lives are minimized, and they take drugs not because of their own personal needs but because they are an inconvenience to others.

RSVP | Parent | Thread