Depression: Rational or irrational?

[Phrossack]

All of this is missing the point. This isn't the "cheer up Phrossack" thread. I'm here to argue that depression does not automatically make one irrational, and that depression is an understandable and not unreasonable reaction to a state of affairs in which the things one needs for happiness are simply not possible.

 

[AmazonQueen]

All of this is missing the point. This isn't the "cheer up Phrossack" thread. I'm here to argue that depression does not automatically make one irrational, and that depression is an understandable and not unreasonable reaction to a state of affairs in which the things one needs for happiness are simply not possible.

Anger and sadness are understandable and not unreasonable reactions but they aren't medical conditions. Depression is a personal state, not a reaction to the state of the world.

 

[bernie14]

Happiness is relative and transient...defining a state of happiness on the impossible may be considered by some, irrational

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Depression just is. I don't think it really matters if it's rational or irrational. I would never ask if HIV was rational, for example. There are certain aspects of that particular disease that you can clearly correlate with irrationality, say risky sexual behavior, but trying to frame the overall disease in rational or irrational terms is missing the point. The same applies to depression. It is an illness, not a willful or even normal response to stimuli.

I'm not sure the question of whether it's rational is meaningful.

There is more than one potential cause. For example if someone has a physiological issue as the cause then depression is "rational" in the same sense that cancer or a broken bone are rational.

On the other hand, if someone is taking an otherwise helpful medication that is also causing depression as a side effect, the decision on whether or not to continue taking that medication could be made rationally based on expected utility.

As far as I'm aware this is a condition clinical diagnosis and specifics on it are best asked of said experts, though as usual sometimes lay people give useful insight worth bouncing off said professionals.

 

[Bootstoots]

I'm here to argue that depression does not automatically make one irrational, and that depression is an understandable and not unreasonable reaction to a state of affairs in which the things one needs for happiness are simply not possible.

I think that's pretty clearly right - if you truly have good reasons to expect that the conditions for happiness are no longer possible, or are exceedingly unlikely, depression is absolutely a rational response. Conversely, quite a few people who are mostly happy are happy largely for irrational reasons and would be less so if their delusional positive beliefs were dispelled.

I guess the question is, though, what's your point? I don't think too many people would argue that depression is literally always irrational, even for someone imprisoned for life in solitary confinement at ADX Florence. So the way your thread is reading is as an intellectual defense of your ongoing depressive episode. That's a bit shakier, because it seems to resolve to an argument that depression is the most rational possible response to long-term negative trends like climate change. Most of us think it's possible to be rationally satisfied with life even if the future is bleak, and that's the point you're getting the most pushback on.

I used to intellectualize my own depression in the same terms, but I did finally realize that it's just my individual response, and that it's possible to be perfectly rational without that pervasive sense of despair. This hasn't made me much less depressed so far, granted. But I recognize that it's my own personal issue, and the justification in terms of bleak global trends is more of an effect of my depression than a cause of it.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think that's pretty clearly right - if you truly have good reasons to expect that the conditions for happiness are no longer possible, or are exceedingly unlikely, depression is absolutely a rational response. Conversely, quite a few people who are mostly happy are happy largely for irrational reasons and would be less so if their delusional positive beliefs were dispelled.

I guess the question is, though, what's your point? I don't think too many people would argue that depression is literally always irrational, even for someone imprisoned for life in solitary confinement at ADX Florence. So the way your thread is reading is as an intellectual defense of your ongoing depressive episode. That's a bit shakier, because it seems to resolve to an argument that depression is the most rational possible response to long-term negative trends like climate change. Most of us think it's possible to be rationally satisfied with life even if the future is bleak, and that's the point you're getting the most pushback on.

I used to intellectualize my own depression in the same terms, but I did finally realize that it's just my individual response, and that it's possible to be perfectly rational without that pervasive sense of despair. This hasn't made me much less depressed so far, granted. But I recognize that it's my own personal issue, and the justification in terms of bleak global trends is more of an effect of my depression than a cause of it.

Also it is argued that past some point in time after the onset/shock etc of the event primarily responsible for the depression, the state changes and what normally happens is that the mourning stops. You can be left with some remnant depending on seriousness of loss and character traits (eg if one loses a limb it isn't the same as losing your job, etc), but afaik in psychiatry depression itself after the mourning stage is not identified as being there without ties to unresolved psychological issues (which in turn usually means something repressed, including anything to a fully-fledged split in how one deals with the traumatic source, both catalyst and older ones).

 

[Phrossack]

I think that's pretty clearly right - if you truly have good reasons to expect that the conditions for happiness are no longer possible, or are exceedingly unlikely, depression is absolutely a rational response. Conversely, quite a few people who are mostly happy are happy largely for irrational reasons and would be less so if their delusional positive beliefs were dispelled.

I guess the question is, though, what's your point? I don't think too many people would argue that depression is literally always irrational, even for someone imprisoned for life in solitary confinement at ADX Florence. So the way your thread is reading is as an intellectual defense of your ongoing depressive episode. That's a bit shakier, because it seems to resolve to an argument that depression is the most rational possible response to long-term negative trends like climate change. Most of us think it's possible to be rationally satisfied with life even if the future is bleak, and that's the point you're getting the most pushback on.

I used to intellectualize my own depression in the same terms, but I did finally realize that it's just my individual response, and that it's possible to be perfectly rational without that pervasive sense of despair. This hasn't made me much less depressed so far, granted. But I recognize that it's my own personal issue, and the justification in terms of bleak global trends is more of an effect of my depression than a cause of it.

This is closer to what I'm getting at.

I made this thread because I'm frankly tired of being told, "Your depression warps your worldview because of reasons" or "You're just saying that because you're depressed, your concerns are invalid," or "You're wrong to think things are dire even though you've provided evidence and and I haven't bothered."

There's a natural human tendency to want to believe that things will work out. This becomes a problem when it leads to denying unpleasant realities and treating people who acknowledge them as being inherently irrational and out of their minds. It doesn't matter whether a person is depressed or not; their points deserve to be taken on their own merits, and not simply dismissed.

 

[Kyriakos]

They are taken in their own merit. The argument against your position is that due to your depression you don't identify that your position mostly resides on emotional backing, which in turn is there for other reasons; reasons tied to a less theoretical source of depression.
Most people, if honest and decently able to think, will identify intellectual arguments, yet it is hugely common for a person to not notice the emotional backing of one's own arguments.

 

[Phrossack]

They are taken in their own merit. The argument against your position is that due to your depression you don't identify that your position mostly resides on emotional backing, which in turn is there for other reasons; reasons tied to a less theoretical source of depression.
Most people, if honest and decently able to think, will identify intellectual arguments, yet it is hugely common for a person to not notice the emotional backing of one's own arguments.

My arguments, when argued against, are rarely treated like that. I could lay out a whole essay of solid evidence as to why, say, the world's biospheres are at grave risk of collapse and mass extinction, and all I'd get would be, "Oh, so you think you're better than us? How narcissistic," or "You're just saying that because you're depressed and can't be taken seriously" or "Oh, well, I'm sure someone will think of something..."

My point is, my arguments are being rejected for purely emotional reasons because people get defensive about their optimism bubble being popped, not because anyone wants to actually engage any of my points. And yet it's the emotionally charged arguments that are defended, while you say I'm just saying these things because I'm too emotional.

This thread isn't for discussing environmental crises; I'm just using them as an example of people emotionally rejecting my evidence while downplaying anything I say because they assume depressed people are irrational by default.

 

[civvver]

All of this is missing the point. This isn't the "cheer up Phrossack" thread. I'm here to argue that depression does not automatically make one irrational, and that depression is an understandable and not unreasonable reaction to a state of affairs

That's not irrational.

the things one needs for happiness are simply not possible.

That is completely irrational. The only constant in life is change. Things change, your surroundings and circumstances change, what you desire to be happy changes, your evaluation of what happiness is changes. So to stay in a depressed state indefinitely and say that this is totally normal is very irrational.

To make it more applicable to you, you can be upset about the state of the earth's environment or whatever, and concerned about it, but if it literally makes you unhappy and depressed all the time then no, that's not a rational response. That's an emotional response.

 

[Phrossack]

That's not irrational.




That is completely irrational. The only constant in life is change. Things change, your surroundings and circumstances change, what you desire to be happy changes, your evaluation of what happiness is changes. So to stay in a depressed state indefinitely and say that this is totally normal is very irrational.

To make it more applicable to you, you can be upset about the state of the earth's environment or whatever, and concerned about it, but if it literally makes you unhappy and depressed all the time then no, that's not a rational response. That's an emotional response.

1. I require Thing X to be happy.

2. All evidence shows Thing X is disappearing for good and is irreparably damaged.

3. I am unhappy because Thing X, which I require for happiness, is disappearing.

Where's the irrationality in that? You could say, "Oh, just stop caring about whatever it is that makes you happy and pick something else, like a lifetime in a cubicle." But it's irrational to assume people can and should just choose to enjoy whatever their circumstances are, just as it would be irrational to argue that if someone's been sold into slavery, they should learn to enjoy chains.

It's also worth repeating for the umpteenth and hopefully last time that I've been depressed for a very long time, and environmental collapse is just one factor in it, and not even the cause at that.

 

[Kyriakos]

1. I require Thing X to be happy.

2. All evidence shows Thing X is disappearing for good and is irreparably damaged.

3. I am unhappy because Thing X, which I require for happiness, is disappearing.

Where's the irrationality in that? You could say, "Oh, just stop caring about whatever it is that makes you happy and pick something else, like a lifetime in a cubicle." But it's irrational to assume people can and should just choose to enjoy whatever their circumstances are, just as it would be irrational to argue that if someone's been sold into slavery, they should learn to enjoy chains.

Like civvver said, the only constant in life is indeed change. There isn't a single person who lived for a while and did not have to readjust somewhat. That this is hard... is very clear. Yet the reason it is far harder for some than for others is something usually examined psychologically.

There is a nice quote by Epictetos, the stoic philosopher: "people suffer not due to the things that happen to them, but due to how they view those things".

 

[Phrossack]

Like civvver said, they only constant in life is indeed change. There isn't a single person who lived for a while and did not have to readjust somewhat. That this is hard... is very clear. Yet the reason it is far harder for some than for others is something usually examined psychologically.

There is a nice quote by Epictetos, the stoic philosopher: "people suffer not due to the things that happen to them, but due to how they view those things".

I never liked Stoicism for that reason. It seems to say that if someone is sad for, say, being enslaved, or for losing their family, or for anything else, it's their own fault for being unhappy about it. It's unreasonable to expect people to shrug off such things like they don't even care.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I've only skimmed this thread, but one thing that jumps out at me is that depression and unhappiness are being conflated.

 

[jarred!]

Depression is a mental health disorder, and you can't choose to be depressed. Telling a depressed person to be happy is going to hurt, not help them.

In the states it's very common to be blamed for being mentally ill. Blaming someone for contacting cancer seems outrageous, though. Having a genetic disorder (Down's syndrome, Klinefelter, low metabolism) is another example of medical victim blaming/shaming. None of these illnesses are choices.

 

[Kyriakos]

I never liked Stoicism for that reason. It seems to say that if someone is sad for, say, being enslaved, or for losing their family, or for anything else, it's their own fault for being unhappy about it. It's unreasonable to expect people to shrug off such things like they don't even care.

Epictetos was actually enslaved himself, for what that is worth

Some ailments are harder and will leave worse remnant. If a mother loses her child she is not likely to ever get over it. Likewise for losing limbs. Yet the vast majority of depressed people do not face such, so the psychological factor is a lot more prominent.

 

[jarred!]

Yet the vast majority of depressed people do not face such, so the psychological factor is a lot more prominent.

This is emotional abuse towards phrossack and anyone else suffering from depression.
The loss of a child should hold no more merit (to 'justify' depression), than any other experience. There is no way to equate, or compare, the hardships two separate people have endured, and, specifically, the effects they have on each person's mental health. The idea that someone has to justify depression is absurd. Just because you can't relate to someone else's anguish does not discredit their response.

Stifling emotions is what leads to common issues like anxiety disorders and depression. The idea that being emotionless is healthy is archaic.

 

[Kyriakos]

"Emotional abuse"? Ok... You clearly did not identify what i said. I said nothing about the pain felt. The point was that in cases with not readily obvious source of the particularly traumatic and permanent type (loss of a child, loss of body parts etc) the pain is identified logically as being there more due to psychological reasons than non-repressed source and tied repressed emotion. Nothing abusive at all about this view.
Of course a person can feel extreme pain even in cases where others will not identify what the issue is. That means not that the pain isn't real; it means though that the source isn't examined by the sufferer in a manner which will lead to some degree of therapy. All sorts of other parameters exist concurrently, including biological factors, yet psychology also is a parameter and at times clearly of use.

 

[civvver]

Depression is a mental health disorder, and you can't choose to be depressed. Telling a depressed person to be happy is going to hurt, not help them.

In the states it's very common to be blamed for being mentally ill. Blaming someone for contacting cancer seems outrageous, though. Having a genetic disorder (Down's syndrome, Klinefelter, low metabolism) is another example of medical victim blaming/shaming. None of these illnesses are choices.

OP has said he is not talking about clinical depression but rather a depressed feeling or outlook on life as a result of circumstances.

1. I require Thing X to be happy.

2. All evidence shows Thing X is disappearing for good and is irreparably damaged.

3. I am unhappy because Thing X, which I require for happiness, is disappearing.

Where's the irrationality in that? You could say, "Oh, just stop caring about whatever it is that makes you happy and pick something else, like a lifetime in a cubicle." But it's irrational to assume people can and should just choose to enjoy whatever their circumstances are, just as it would be irrational to argue that if someone's been sold into slavery, they should learn to enjoy chains.

It's also worth repeating for the umpteenth and hopefully last time that I've been depressed for a very long time, and environmental collapse is just one factor in it, and not even the cause at that.

I guarantee you if you posted thing X that you needed to be happy we can find a way for you to get more of thing X. Like I said, if it's communing with nature, move. Go live somewhere surrounded by nature while it does indeed still exist. I agree with you that people sold into slavery or whatever can't actually do that, but since you clearly have access to the internet, it's highly unlikely you're one of these oppressed people who literally can't do anything to change your situation.

Or you can just be in a depressed state and accept it. But it sounds like you want others to validate your unhappiness. Why?

 

[red_elk]

1. I require Thing X to be happy.

2. All evidence shows Thing X is disappearing for good and is irreparably damaged.

3. I am unhappy because Thing X, which I require for happiness, is disappearing.

Where's the irrationality in that?

That depends on thing X.
If one person is sad because he is blind, that's one thing. Another person may believe that international Communist conspiracy impurifies his bodily fluids and that makes him depressed.
Both persons have entirely valid subjective reasoning to be depressed. But for external observers, one of them may seem irrational.