Discussion How's my logic?

[Forever Sleep]

To my mind, life involves some pretty much unavoidable elements. Or rather, avoiding them likely lands you in an even worse position.

For example, the common answer to someone complaining about being a wage slave to capitalism/ consumerism is to go and live off grid. That obviously wouldn't be an easier choice in many cases. There simply aren't always good alternatives in many cases- to my mind. We might be able to mitigate our unpleasant circumstances but, only we can assess whether we're happy to live with the slightly better circumstances.

My mind tends to reason that: life compulsorily contains this... But, I don't want to do that! So- isn't the answer clear? Surely it means that if I don't want to do the vital components that make up life, then, I don't want to live? Isn't that logical?

I think people who have ideation are often seen as illogical. Or at least, their perspective on life is scewed.

Are we really talking about perspective though? I guess things like depression can create an exagerated low mood and obliterate our energy. But surely, a lot of it is simple preference? Depression can probably make you start to tire of a life you once enjoyed but, what if you never massively enjoyed life? It can't be abnormal to hate certain things.

Of course, the answer is to change your life or job until you get to the point where you do like it. But, what if that never comes? Is it really illogical to say- I don't like life. I don't want to participate in it?

 

[derpyderpins]

Generally, your logic holds up imo, as it's something I've mulled over a lot.

An argument on the other side - which you partially hit on but I'll expand upon it - is that it is actually hyperlogical thinking when the information we are working with is limited due to the depression. We are depressed, and the present information we have is how that feels. Sure, we can somewhat remember the past, and what it may have been like to feel good, but when you're hurting your biology is going to focus itself on dealing with the hurt.

Think of it this way: you're running from a tiger. Sure you can remember a time when you felt safe before you were running from that tiger, but that can't make your body re-live the feeling of being safe, because it has to remain scared to motivate you to get to safety.

Apply to depression: sure you can remember that you didn't feel so bad at one point, but you can't make your body re-live it, so you can't give a fair comparison of the good you felt before to the psychic pain you feel now. The present feeling will always trump as the body enters its troubleshooting/diagnostic mode.

You start doing math, then - after all, we're trying to be logical - and you try to add up the good you've felt versus the bad to determine if the sum is positive or negative. But, as explained above, biology will force you to put higher value on the present negative.

One thing I have been trying to do is take significant mental notes when I get relief from depression. It's something you don't think to do, because you're finally relieved and there is no drive to correct anything.

Additionally, one might critique our ability to anticipate what the future holds and possbilities before us.

None of this is to say your logic isn't sound, just offering another perspective.

 

[Aergia]

Are we really talking about perspective though? I guess things like depression can create an exagerated low mood and obliterate our energy. But surely, a lot of it is simple preference?

I don't know if you're familiar with Bryan Caplan, but he's an economist who argues that all mental illnesses are merely socially disapproved preferences. He draws upon the work of Thomas Szasz, a psychiatrist who's best known for rejecting the notion of mental illness (and who I'm guessing has been discussed to some extent here, given his stances on psychiatry and the right to die). I can't say I agree with the idea but I'm linking this piece by the former because I think it's interesting.

Personally, I don't like the term mental illness. I think it's too loaded. I'd prefer discussing "disorders" instead of "illnesses" or using "anomalous" instead of "ill" when referring to a mind. To define sickness entails defining wellness, and I just don't think that's as simple as it seems. I think some members here are fine with acknowledging that they're mentally ill, but I've seen other members who clearly display symptoms of "mental illness" as it's generally perceived (anhedonia, SH, endogenous suicidal ideation, etc.) but spurn the label and who do indeed seem to view their desire to die as, well, a socially disapproved preference.

The question of whether it's logical to want to die because you can't accept necessary aspects of life... just doesn't have an answer, imo—it all depends on the principles you start from, because you simply have to start somewhere. A promortalist would say that suicide is always a good idea, because one their first principles is that the presence of pain is worse than the absence of pleasure. And a so-called normie would say suicide is wrong because one of their first principles is that life is intrinsically good. The rest of us fall somewhere in between, but either way, where you end up generally depends on what your foundations are.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Generally, your logic holds up imo, as it's something I've mulled over a lot.

An argument on the other side - which you partially hit on but I'll expand upon it - is that it is actually hyperlogical thinking when the information we are working with is limited due to the depression. We are depressed, and the present information we have is how that feels. Sure, we can somewhat remember the past, and what it may have been like to feel good, but when you're hurting your biology is going to focus itself on dealing with the hurt.

Think of it this way: you're running from a tiger. Sure you can remember a time when you felt safe before you were running from that tiger, but that can't make your body re-live the feeling of being safe, because it has to remain scared to motivate you to get to safety.

Apply to depression: sure you can remember that you didn't feel so bad at one point, but you can't make your body re-live it, so you can't give a fair comparison of the good you felt before to the psychic pain you feel now. The present feeling will always trump as the body enters its troubleshooting/diagnostic mode.

You start doing math, then - after all, we're trying to be logical - and you try to add up the good you've felt versus the bad to determine if the sum is positive or negative. But, as explained above, biology will force you to put higher value on the present negative.

One thing I have been trying to do is take significant mental notes when I get relief from depression. It's something you don't think to do, because you're finally relieved and there is no drive to correct anything.

Additionally, one might critique our ability to anticipate what the future holds and possbilities before us.

None of this is to say your logic isn't sound, just offering another perspective.

Your logic is absolutely sound and I appreciate your perspective.

I suppose from my own perspective, I'm not even sure I am depressed. Not deeply anyway.

My apetite is normal, my sleep pattern- normal, my sex drive (not that I have anyone to share it with!) normal. I don't feel a deep hatred of myself particularly. I'm annoyed when I screw things up but I don't feel a total failure to myself or my family. I can hold down a job. I can meet demanding deadlines when I need to. I still find certain things enjoyable.

It's more, that the things I hate, I REALLY hate. Like tidying and cleaning. That's what's causing my current tantrum! Overall though, life just contains an endless stream of chores and responsibilities that I simply don't want to do but can't effectively avoid.

It's not to the extreme of being completely constant. When I worked in retail on top, I was reaching for the anti-depressants! But it's enough for life overall to seem- really not worth the effort. Thinking about it, I'm not sure it's ever felt worth the effort. I think I was just a lot more compliant when I was young. I suppose I genuinely did get more out of pursuing my career too.

It's kind of odd actually. I was diagnosed with mild to moderate depression around 15 years ago- during my long stint in retail- unsurprisingly. At the time, the diagnosis actually comforted me as I thought- ok then. This is an illness so therefore, it can be cured. I'm not convinced it's so straight forward as that now. Plus, I think simply disliking a lot about the nature of life doesn't necessarily mean someone is depressed. More that maybe they just can't find enough ways to make life enjoyable for themselves (and survive.)

I don't know if you're familiar with Bryan Caplan, but he's an economist who argues that all mental illnesses are merely socially disapproved preferences. He draws upon the work of Thomas Szasz, a psychiatrist who's best known for rejecting the notion of mental illness (and who I'm guessing has been discussed to some extent here, given his stances on psychiatry and the right to die). I can't say I agree with the idea but I'm linking this piece by the former because I think it's interesting.

Personally, I don't like the term mental illness. I think it's too loaded. I'd prefer discussing "disorders" instead of "illnesses" or using "anomalous" instead of "ill" when referring to a mind. To define sickness entails defining wellness, and I just don't think that's as simple as it seems. I think some members here are fine with acknowledging that they're mentally ill, but I've seen other members who clearly display symptoms of "mental illness" as it's generally perceived (anhedonia, SH, endogenous suicidal ideation, etc.) but spurn the label and who do indeed seem to view their desire to die as, well, a socially disapproved preference.

The question of whether it's logical to want to die because you can't accept necessary aspects of life... just doesn't have an answer, imo—it all depends on the principles you start from, because you simply have to start somewhere. A promortalist would say that suicide is always a good idea, because one of their first principles is that the presence of pain is worse than the absence of pleasure. And a so-called normie would say suicide is wrong because one of their first principles is that life is intrinsically good. The rest of us fall somewhere in between, but either way, where you end up generally depends on what your foundations are.

Thank you so much for linking that. I found it really interesting. I think I might have come across the term: 'meta preferences' before but not properly understood it so, this gave me a much better grasp.

Interesting that they described homosexuality and (I think it was) a deep aversion to a vegetable as 'meta preferences'. So basically- deeply felt preferences that we have less choice over in a way.

If I grasped this correctly, he's saying that depression itself- the preference to be unhappy- despite a person's circumstances is a meta-preference? I'm not sure really. I'd imagine an awful lot of depression is triggered directly by an aversion to something in a person's circumstances. Not always of course, it can hit out of the blue. But, if that were the case, wouldn't we have those meta preferences from the start?

Do only some people have the propensity to develop depression? Will they develop it despite their circumstances or, will something trigger it?

You wouldn't begin a promising career in marketing, love everything about it, leap out of bed in the mornings at the thought of going in to the office but then suddenly realise you hate everything about it, have no energy, can barely get out of bed in the mornings if it was always your meta preference to hate marketing. So, what else changed?

It's definitely interesting. I definitely don't agree with it with respect to some specific diagnoses. Things like Bipolar, PTSD, Schizophrenia, Eating Disorders. They all have very specific traits. Unless he's saying that those particular people always have those meta preferences that make them susceptible to those conditions. But- PTSD for example is all cause and effect. You're not going to get PTSD unless you've experienced a traumatic event.

I don't know really. Maybe I don't have a proper grasp on it or, lack the intelligence to understand. So- is his argument that these conditions don't actually change the way our brains work?

I'm not convinced about that either. Someone suffering from Schizophrenia for example surely has a brain that's creating hallucinations. That's surely different to a neurotypical brain.

I certainly think that our brains can get stuck in a way of thinking. Part of how we learn is by doing things repetitively so- it doesn't surprise me that those of us who are pessimists and cynics become comfortable thinking in that way and feel reluctant to change. But I think a lot of people's unhappiness is triggered by a real life circumstance. I think a lot of people are unhappy because they simply can't see a feasible way of living how they want.

 

[Aergia]

@Forever Sleep I believe he's saying that there are people who have depressive preferences (like wanting to ctb), but would like it better if they didn't have these preferences (i.e. their meta-preference is not to be depressed). In the same way, a gay man in the 60s by definition would sexually prefer men, but because of societal attitudes he might prefer not to prefer men (so his meta-preference would favour women). So it would preferences are often the result of instincts outside of our control, while meta-preferences are often the result of higher-order thought. And as he says, all of us have some preferences that conflict with our meta-preferences—for instance if you crave cake while dieting, that means you would prefer to eat cake but you would prefer not to have this preference, since it's making your diet harder on you.

So- is his argument that these conditions don't actually change the way our brains work?

I think this is a good question and he actually addresses it in his piece on ADHD. He essentially says that the fact that these illnesses change people's brains is irrelevant—sure, so-called mentally ill people might have different brains when compared to everyone else, but that doesn't mean those people are sick:

Another misconception about Szasz is that he denies the connection between physical and mental activity. Critics often cite findings of 'chemical imbalances' in the mentally ill. The problem with these claims, from a Szaszian point of view, is not that they find a connection between brain chemistry and behavior. The problem is that 'imbalance' is a moral judgment masquerading as a medical one. Supposed we found that nuns had a brain chemistry verifiably different from non-nuns. Would we infer that being a nun is a mental illness?

Just trying to steelman here btw. He and psychiatrist Scott Alexander have debated the subject (if you want to check them out the exchanges are: 1 2 3 4 5). I find Alexander's counterarguments to be more compelling. You mention schizophrenia and while I find his Caplan's idea mildly compelling when considering ADHD, eating disorders, etc. I also remember thinking that it just doesn't work with schizophrenia. Schizophrenics genuinely believe their delusions—they're part of their reality, and I imagine whether or not they'd prefer seeing/hearing/believing them is irrelevant.

(Unrelated but just wanted to say appreciate your posts here—I admire how you're both intellectually curious and intellectually humble. I don't think those traits are all that common).

 

[avalokitesvara]

For your specific example of chores, some people just don't do those things if they don't want to. I think in the current world there's a binary established where either you're Capital Letters Mentally Ill and either want or need treatment to "cure you", or, you're "normal". There's actually no such defined binary. There's choosing to live in ways that are deeply socially unsupported, "eccentric", like giving up caring about cleaning and hygiene would be. But is someone who is content to live in a dirty house someone who needs to be "cured"? In your own case, why is it a choice to either go along with the social norm, or die? I find it interesting how little freedom we feel we have to live in ways that we are fine with but might not be acceptable to others. Back in the day it seems like it was more acknowledged that some people are "eccentric" but not that those people need to be medicalised.

For myself, I certainly see no reason why I should do what "everyone else does" when I violently don't want to (in my case, earn money, gain property, be an economic being) and have done my best to avoid that as much as I am able to even though it makes me "weird" and has been difficult. If I was forced to do those things I would rather die. Is that mental illness? Or is it having, actually, high standards for my life and choosing by what terms my life is livable according to myself? That seems like the definition of being healthy, in my opinion. I think much sicker are people who sleepwalk through life not even knowing why they're doing all the things they do.

 

[Overwhelmed52]

I woke up in a pretty good mood this morning, but I still don't want to be here. There's just nothing for me to be or to add. I don't know that I will actively ctb, but I would just love it if I went to sleep one night and didn't wake up. To go off peacefully from some unknown medical issue would be great.

 

[Edu Ardanuy]

Generally, your logic holds up imo, as it's something I've mulled over a lot.

An argument on the other side - which you partially hit on but I'll expand upon it - is that it is actually hyperlogical thinking when the information we are working with is limited due to the depression. We are depressed, and the present information we have is how that feels. Sure, we can somewhat remember the past, and what it may have been like to feel good, but when you're hurting your biology is going to focus itself on dealing with the hurt.

Think of it this way: you're running from a tiger. Sure you can remember a time when you felt safe before you were running from that tiger, but that can't make your body re-live the feeling of being safe, because it has to remain scared to motivate you to get to safety.

Apply to depression: sure you can remember that you didn't feel so bad at one point, but you can't make your body re-live it, so you can't give a fair comparison of the good you felt before to the psychic pain you feel now. The present feeling will always trump as the body enters its troubleshooting/diagnostic mode.

You start doing math, then - after all, we're trying to be logical - and you try to add up the good you've felt versus the bad to determine if the sum is positive or negative. But, as explained above, biology will force you to put higher value on the present negative.

One thing I have been trying to do is take significant mental notes when I get relief from depression. It's something you don't think to do, because you're finally relieved and there is no drive to correct anything.

Additionally, one might critique our ability to anticipate what the future holds and possbilities before us.

None of this is to say your logic isn't sound, just offering another perspective.

interesting thoughts, I'll take that into account myself

 

[Forever Sleep]

For your specific example of chores, some people just... don't do those things. I think in the current world there's a binary established where either you're Capital Letters Mentally Ill and either want or need treatment to "cure you", or, you're "normal". There's actually no such defined binary. There's choosing to live in ways that are deeply socially unsupported, "eccentric", like giving up caring about cleaning and hygiene would be. But is someone who is content to live in a dirty house someone who needs to be "cured"? In your own case, why is it a choice to either go along with the social norm, or die? I find it interesting how little freedom we feel we have to live in ways that we are fine with but might not be acceptable to others. Back in the day it seems like it was more acknowledged that some people are "eccentric" but not that those people need to be medicalised.

For myself, I certainly see no reason why I should do what "everyone else does" when I violently don't want to (in my case, earn money, gain property, be an economic being) and have done my best to avoid that as much as I am able to even though it makes me "weird" and has been difficult. If I was forced to do those things I would rather die. Is that mental illness? Or is it having, actually, high standards for my life and choosing by what terms my life is livable according to myself? That seems like the definition of being healthy, in my opinion. I think much sicker are people who sleepwalk through life not even knowing why they're doing all the things they do.

I agree with you to a great extent. I'm far less willing to comply with social expectations compared to my Dad- who will whinge like mad about doing the gardening every time I speak to him. Plus, whinge about the state of the neighbour's gardens. (And no, I put them off visiting me too because even after I've done my best to clean, they'll still voice their disapproval.) He'll even refuse me paying for a gardener for them on occasion because: 'It's good for him to do' and he feels like he has to do it. I think that in part is a generation thing. My parents and grandparents were far more compliant and house proud than me.

But yes- some of it's choice. We can choose to neglect our environments and ourselves if we can put up with the mess.

That only works to an extent though. I expect we all realise that if we neglect things too badly, the table tips. We can no longer relax in our own filth because we have an infection or an abscess because we didn't look after our teeth.

Leave the garden too wild and you might end up with rats if they can find food sources nearby. Ignore maintaining the house and areas start to let in water. Insects are able to infest. So, it's a choice but it's a choice that ends with terrible consequences if you let things deteriorate too far.

It's like employment too. You can choose not to work but that means you will need an income source. Not everyone has parents who will bail them out and not everyone is granted benefits. So again- it's a choice but one that has really terrible consequences for a lot of people. Either way basically- if you hate working or think you'll likely hate being homeless. It's sometimes that the disapproved lifestyle choice ends up actually being worse! It would work though if we didn't have needs... But we do have needs all the while we're alive.

 

[avalokitesvara]

well there are other options like joining a commune or a monastery like what i'm doing. but yeah you have to have a certain amount of privilege to be able to take that kind of risk.

 

[Forever Sleep]

well there are other options like joining a commune or a monastery like what i'm doing. but yeah you have to have a certain amount of privilege to be able to take that kind of risk.

Interesting but I definitely think they'll expect you to pull your weight there. So- still working. Sweeping the floors, growing food, cooking, maintaining the property. Just more local community based work/ chores which I'm sure will be nicer actually- so long as everyone is willing to contribute and are appreciative of one another.

I hope it goes well for you. I've fantasized about that kind of life at times. Is the location really nice? I imagine it could well be a better life though. More in line with how we're designed I think. To live in small communities.