Thurs. 12/04/05 13:43 EDT
.post #123
[url=Stefan Molyneux way off on mental illness - #18 by Vladimir_Ulyanov]
The opposite.
Szasz is saying that symptoms are not disease.
Symptoms are the patient’s complaints; they are only indications of disease (see, for example, symptom). Disease itself is, as Szasz says, is “… a demonstrable biological process that affects the bodies of living organisms (plants, animals, and humans).”
But since in “mental illness” there is no “demonstrable biological process,” there are only symptoms, and calling a symptom “a disease” is a logical and semantic error.
[url=Stefan Molyneux way off on mental illness - #18 by Vladimir_Ulyanov]
You are objecting to something Szasz doesn’t say.
Szasz doesn’t say “social dissent has been confused with mental illness.”
[url=Stefan Molyneux way off on mental illness - #18 by Vladimir_Ulyanov]
Szasz doesn’t deny the existence of strange or unpopular behavior.
Szasz does affirm that calling behavior “disease” is a logical and semantic error.
[url=Stefan Molyneux way off on mental illness - #18 by Vladimir_Ulyanov]
Again, you objecting to something Szasz does not say.
Szasz does not “describe mental illness as disapproved thoughts feeling and behaviours.”
Szasz recognizes that what is called “mental illness” “… is a metaphor for disapproved thoughts, feelings, and behaviors,…”
[url=Stefan Molyneux way off on mental illness - #18 by Vladimir_Ulyanov]
That would seem to be the case:
It’s described entirely in terms of behavior.
[url=Stefan Molyneux way off on mental illness - #18 by Vladimir_Ulyanov]
Are you asking a question, or making a statement? The lack of a question mark at the end of your sentence renders your meaning ambiguous.
[url=Stefan Molyneux way off on mental illness - #18 by Vladimir_Ulyanov]
You’re agreeing with something Szasz does not say.
Szasz does not say that “psychiatrists may be able to abuse their powers.” Not even close! Go back and re-read what Szasz writes.
[url=Stefan Molyneux way off on mental illness - #18 by Vladimir_Ulyanov]
What “balance” between respecting the rights of innocent persons, and violating those rights, would you suggest?
[url=Stefan Molyneux way off on mental illness - #18 by Vladimir_Ulyanov]
Does having “homicidal feelings” constitute aggression?
Should a person be locked up, without a trial, because of his “feelings”?
Do psychiatrists have a special ability to know the “feelings” of another person?
Since the libertarian answer to those three questions is “no,” my answer to your question is “yes.”
[url=Stefan Molyneux way off on mental illness - #18 by Vladimir_Ulyanov]
You are agreeing with something Szasz does not say.
Szasz does not say “The jury should be let decide once they hear some mental professionals give their diagnoses.”
In fact, he says the opposite:
“The opinions of experts about the ‘mental state’ of defendants ought to be inadmissible in court.”