Azelma wrote:
How exactly do you do that?
Do you address their problems head on? If they have issues with family members, do you encourage them to talk about it? If they have girl issues making them super depressed....what do you do about it? How exactly do you give someone who sees no reason to live incentive to go on living? How do you help them with the source of their depression? What do you say? Do you agree with Aestu that talk therapy...I mean talking about your feelings and thoughts, working on your interpersonal relationships, working on your relationships with your parents (and having them work on things in turn)...do you think couples therapy and working on what is depressing you about your relationships...etc.... do you think that's all a fool's game and mere pseudoscience?
If so, how do you propose to change someone's perceptions? How to you try to convince someone not to commit suicide?
When do you decide "okay, this person cannot be convinced that their life has worth and they should go on living...now I will help them commit suicide"? Is there a line?
There is no difference between "talk therapy" and talking to a priest or rabbi.
Your questions prove my point which is that shrinkology takes the status quo as an absolute and defends it on a culture-centric basis. If one discards that premise then your questions vacillate and so does shrinkology.
The entire problem is that shrinkology can't provide a convincing reason for people to live other than the American pseudophilosophy of blind optimism.
This optimism is the entire premise of shrinkology, that life is inherently worth living no matter what. It's a contention way, way far out of the realm of anything scientific. It's a religious belief, one inherited from Judaism, that has gradually become fundamental to secular Western culture, and the new faith of shrinkology is heir to that religious belief.
Somehow I think if people had less anxiety and more personal freedom and life security, they would feel less pessimistic about life. Somehow I think if people had the freedom to travel freely, partake in social and recreational activities, and were respected as individuals and not as economic actors, more people would find their lives worthwhile.
And if they don't, then you can't tell them they're wrong without violating their freedom. What do you think gives you or anyone else the right to decide if someone is properly happy or not?
Priests, rabbis and other religious people have been dealing with these same dilemmas since the beginning of time, and they always solve them in the same ways - with chemicals and social pressure. Why do you think that that alcohol plays such a central role in so many faiths? Religions always try to monopolize the power of chemical substances to consolidate their hold on society. Shrinkology is just another pseudoreligion, like Scientology or Sophistry.
Jubbergun wrote:
I just checked a buttload of maps, and there seems to be a 50/50 split concerning whether Azerbaijan is in Asia or not. What really makes me scratch my head is that an area on the western edge of the continent is referred to as "central."
Topography. As proven by migrations.
