GENIUS FORUMS

Trevor wrote:Yes, I was mookestink. But no, I've never been in a "nuthouse". I have, however, been commited to a hospital. Psychiatry certainly has changed a lot in the last hundred and fifty years! Maybe you should read up on it, before you start spouting something ignorant. In fact, if you want an introduction to what mental illness actually is like, it could even make the topic for an interesting thread. I am more than willing to share my experiences....

I have been in and out of the psychiatric hospital myself several times. Most of them were before I started to form any kind of philosophy as a teen.

I did occasionally receive some medication. Three times I was given a drug I told them repeatedly I refused to take because it made me ill (an antiseizure/mood stabilizer). Once I was given an anti-depressant but no antipsychotic. Once I was given an antipsychotic, and once an antianxiety medication. Oh - and once I was given benedryl and ritalin... good going, guys. But the point of this is to mention that the care I received was... disgusting. Nobody listened to me trying to explain what was happening and certainly no one talked to me in any way that would help. Instead, I was treated to an indoctrination and enculturation program.

I have only once found the experience to be helpful in any way. Two of these used a variation of the 12-step method. I'd like to know what idiot came up with the idea of using "believe and trust God" as a method of dealing with a true illness. It seems the 12 steps have become so indoctrinated into our culture that we have forgotten their purpose - if they ever had one. At any rate, it appears the most common method of dealing with mental illness is to forget that it is as serious as physical illness and requires a medical solution.

Most combined the significantly mentally ill with people with depression or otherwise incapable of understanding severe mental illness. Quite frankly, someone who swallowed a month's worth of pills because their husband and boyfriend found out about eachother and left her has very little to say that could be in any way beneficial to someone who swallowed a month's worth of pills because vampires don't like metalic blood and swallowing lithium would allow her to live.

Either I wind up wanting to slap the selfish slut, or she winds up dismissing me as an idiot. I, however, am told by the nursing staff that I must be attentive and compassionate and never minimize another person's problems. Indeed, my chances of acheiving freedom are dependant upon me having positive and normal interactions with the other people in the hospital.

Even during "down time" socialization was required. My boyfriend brought me several books and crossword (and most recently sudoku) puzzles along with a pack of cigarettes. For a while, I attempted to read quietly, but was told that I was "not participating in my therapy" and would be kept in the hospital longer with that attitude. The books lay unread while the cigarettes got smoked. By the way, this is true even of the times I went into the hospital when I didn't smoke on the outside. Smoking at a table outside was seen as appropriate socialization and enforced.

Socialization, however, was limited to the other patients. The nurses had a glass wall surrounding their station and no contact with patients except for monitoring blood pressure and temperature daily, and occasionally blood tests. They also gave instructions in a manner a parent might speak to a child. In addition, you were denied the privalige of going to the cafeteria until you conformed to the accepted standards of behavior. While you were given food, it was of lower quality and there were no options. During one of my stays I was a muslim, and was forced to eat ham and cheese. In other words this was the authority and you must obey.

An inability or unwillingness to conform leads to some dramatic consequences. At one point, I tried to refuse the drug that made me ill. After my refual became a shouting match (and btw, I was not the first to shout; the nurse was) a security guard was called in to physically force me to take it. I fought back and was given a shot of something (I believe it was haldol, but they never were willing to tell me) and found myself with my arms and legs strapped to a restraining board. This is something that would simply never take place anywhere else with "sane" people. (perhaps prison is an exception, however I believe we are currently required to be more humane to prisoners.)



Socialize with your own class, obey authority and smoke to forget your problems. This is the only way to acheive freedom. Though I wasn't able to quite put a finger on it, it disgusted me at the time. Now that I have had the time and ability to look at what was demanded and trained I realize how truly evil the way we treat people is. Conform perfectly, or be removed.

*It amazes me that the Army was the one exception to most of this. We were treated with respect, permitted (and encouraged) to read alone in bed, not expected to speak to eachother, and even taken out of the hospital for walks in the woods. It is also the only place that gave me any form of official test to determine what was wrong. However this is also where the only drug I received was benedryl.


I'm afraid I have to disagree with Trevor that care has changed all that much. Perhaps it is better if you have better insurance, or can afford a private hospital. But for the majority of us...

I'd be interested, Trevor (and anyone else, of course), in hearing your experiences. Were they similar to mine or not? I've also considered starting a thread on the experience of mental illness (rather than the system) a few times (I've been asked by two different posters but wasn't entirely certain where to start or go with it so I haven't yet. Though if you have an idea of where to start I'd also be interested)



*incidentally, my favorite quote from a TV show ever is based on the 12 step program. From House MD "Ok, Step 1, I can go along with believing in a higher power. Maybe not a god per se, but the Jolly Green Giant is definitly higher, and he looks pretty powerful..."


Sheesh this turned into a longer post than I expected. Oh well, hopefully it will be of interest to someone and encourage people to think...

Katy wrote:

I'd be interested, Trevor (and anyone else, of course), in hearing your experiences. Were they similar to mine or not?

Pretty much. I didn't take any of the medication offered, but when I was living in Guelph last year I took a dose of my housemate's zyprexa with olanzapine and found that it had the effect of making my head feel like it weighed about 1000 lbs.

Katy, the Canadian experience is quite different.

We have a public health care system, and all patients are given an allowance of $80 per month (for cigarettes and whatnot) while in the hospital, while the patients with the more severe illnesses (such as myself) receive welfare of $1000/month. Essentially, you get paid for being ill.

Given their dangerous job, the nurses are quite relaxed, and mingle with the intelligible patients. I say dangerous because more than once I have seen nurses get attacked by patients without provocation (those patients are then taken to a more secure building).

It is possible to get special consideration for meals. Although smoking will allow you a few more trips to the courtyard per day, the nurses will actively help any patient who wants to quit smoking (patches, nicotine inhalers, counselling, etc.). Socialization is not necessary; there are patients who will sit in their room all day, and only come out for the four 5-minute smoke breaks.

I remember one lady was commited to the hospital by her boyfriend, and even though she treated all the nurses like garbage (and even smeared shit on the walls when she was locked up in solitary confinement), within a week she managed to talk to the right people and get released -- even though the "rules" say a person need to stay for at least 2 weeks for observation. It was understood that she was furious for being commited when she wasn't ill.

The hospital is more boring than anything, the most interesting thing being watching other patients try to deal with their delusions. The nurses are friendly, and the doctors were more than happy to answer my questions about medications and such. I think there's a lot less cynicism in a system that's publicly funded, which is probably why I relate more to your experience in a military hospital than to the private ones.

As to my illness, I'm diagnosed with "schizoaffective disorder with underlying symptoms of major depression". The most obvious part of my illness, and the one most carefully monitored and medicated, is the "affective" part -- bipolar disorder. I have manic cycles that last 3 months (I will not sleep at all during these cycles), and similar depressive cycles. With my current medications, I'm more stable than anyone I've ever met (my moods rarely fluctuate).

I'm bipolar, too, I think. Suicide attempts, morbid fascinations, unwavering cynicism, and sometimes I imagine my body is nothing more than icy rubber, and it feels hot and cold at the same time, and it tingles irritatingly, like someone is caressing my skin with the edges of knives the whole time. My depression is more circumstancial, i think, than anything else. Life has delt me one too many blows. Also, I have too many talents that I am not using, and it kills me to know that I have it but that I can not use it, not really, due to my situation. And my evil genius family is laughing all the way to the end, pretending like I am just this fucking stupid normal kid, that I am capable of nothing more than the kid next door, but the truth is I am bored, I am so bored with having to do normal, straight forward stuff, that I want to go crazy. I want to create, write, sing, dance, really feel like i am living. But the Nietzscean family of mine just laughs at my morals, my ideals, my quest to be what I think normal is.

HUNTEDvsINVIS wrote:And my evil genius family is laughing all the way to the end, pretending like I am just this fucking stupid normal kid, that I am capable of nothing more than the kid next door, but the truth is I am bored, I am so bored with having to do normal, straight forward stuff, that I want to go crazy. I want to create, write, sing, dance, really feel like i am living. But the Nietzscean family of mine just laughs at my morals, my ideals, my quest to be what I think normal is.

This is quite familiar to me, as well. My family continues to refuse to believe there is anything wrong with me. Or at least believe that it will magically fix itself. Indeed one of the things my mother likes to say to me is "you're acting like your aunt!" who is schizophrenic but much worse off than I am (then again, time tends to do that, which scares me).

I'm bipolar, too, I think.

Eeeks! Don't call yourself bipolar unless diagnosed. That honestly reads like, "I'm diabetic, too, I think." If you aren't sure, get yourself checked out (or in this case, in).

Mental illness seriously impairs a person's ability to function in any way... including their ability to progress philosophically.

But the Nietzscean family of mine just laughs at my morals, my ideals, my quest to be what I think normal is.

Are you sure Nietzschian is the right word to describe a family?

Yes, in my opinion it is the right way to describe the family, for it reflects their ideals. For them it is "will to power", and they are avid fans of Hitler. They don't care if I slop away, as long as they feel powerful.

And, well, yes Trevor, my ability to function has been impaired rather significantly.

And, well, yes Trevor, my ability to function has been impaired rather significantly.

I'm suspicious of this because very few people with a severe mental illness are very aware of their illness. One of the first things you lose during an episode is insight into your condition.

Philosophy, even without a mental illness, can also impair your ability to function conventionally (at work, at school, around others, toward material objects, and sexually). :)

Yes, in my opinion it is the right way to describe the family, for it reflects their ideals. For them it is "will to power", and they are avid fans of Hitler. They don't care if I slop away, as long as they feel powerful.

That's the exoteric view of Nietzsche, which a complete understanding of his writings does not support.

I cannot imagine a living Nietzsche supporting Hitler in any way. Those who read anti-semitism, Nazism, racial superiority, misogyny, (etc.) in Nietzsche are very superficial readers. He can't be taken at face value, especially since he had a wonderful sense of humour (which you'd expect from someone who managed to stay in good spirits while his body and mind slowly fell apart).

Will to power, properly digested and understood, is very different from the raw egotism you seem to be describing. It describes something much closer to the mindless growth of a tree striving for the sunlight than someone who takes pleasure from imagined superiority.

I'm suspicious of this because very few people with a severe mental illness are very aware of their illness. One of the first things you lose during an episode is insight into your condition.

I think an important point about this was made in the "Marsha" thread. Bipolar disorder has become "cool" and the definition watered down to include just about anyone. Who doesn't have mood swings? I got bored online one night and started looking through the DSM-IV. I found that if I thought about it hard enough I could be diagnosed with almost anything in the book. The difference is in how much it affects your life.

I can sit here in 2007 and tell you how much schizophrenia and borderline personality disorder affect my life. However, this is after years of trying to find the correct drug combinations, talk therapy, and hospitalizations. In fact, I refused to acknowledge that I was sick even after being hospitalized several times.

Katy,

Who doesn't have mood swings? I got bored online one night and started looking through the DSM-IV. I found that if I thought about it hard enough I could be diagnosed with almost anything in the book. The difference is in how much it affects your life.

There's a reason only people who have been through medical school, and then several years of specialization, are allowed to diagnose anyone. A man cannot become a psychiatrist until he is in his thirties -- and even then it's a hard job.

Mood swings aren't a problem until they affect your ability to eat, sleep, groom yourself, and communicate intelligibly to others.

Nietzsche's rejection of Hitler can be found in his rejection of Wagner, and the pettiness of politics generally. Wagner was big on German nationalism and grand political ideals, which Nietzsche went along with for awhile (because he was young and admired Wagner as a man), but eventually found repugnant.

If I recall correctly, he rejected Wagner during the writing of his second book - Human, All Too Human. Wagner and his inner circle mocked that book mercilessly and ridiculed the new direction that Nietzsche was going in - namely, more inward and spiritual. They were even crude enough to suggest that he was a social misfit who masturbated too much.

I don't think there is any doubt that had Nietzsche been alive in the 1930's and still living in Germany, he would have been sent to a concentration camp for dissent.

-

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: There's a reason only people who have been through medical school, and then several years of specialization, are allowed to diagnose anyone. A man cannot become a psychiatrist until he is in his thirties -- and even then it's a hard job.

Well, yes, that was my point. I was trying to say that "I think I'm bipolar" is inappropriate if you're still functioning because it is possible for anyone to identify characteristics of any mental illness within themselves. It is when taken to extremes that they become a problem.

I thought as much, Katy, but didn't want to take any chances in case I happened to disagree with you. Thanks for clearing that up.

"Ideas of Human Nature: An Historical Introduction": by Roger Trigg:

"Nietzsche's ideal is the heroic individual who refuses to be bound by the restraints of society or by traditional morality. One's purposes are not presented from the outside but must be imposed by one's own will. We have to exert ourselves to create our own standards, because there can be no objective source for moral standards. For Nietzche there was no question of the will being free or unfree, but rather of it being strong or weak. He was thus able to claim that 'life itself is essentially approbation, injury, overpowering of the strange and weaker, suppression, severity...and at the least and mildest, exploitation'. He went on to deny that exploitation was a sign of a corrupt, imperfect or primitive society..."

"It is all too probable that a Nazi would have found only encouragenment in Nietzsche's utterences, since all moral restraints had been swept aside".


This is probably why I associate my family with Nietzscheans. This was just a book we did in my first year. You are welcome to quote Nietzsche from other sources to help me improve my insight. The "eternal recurrence" was a particularly curious matter, and almost seemed to be a circle argument. I estimated that it is more advantageous to stick to good ol' Christianity than to use the idea of eternal recurrence to your own advantage. But I won't elaborate, it is too higher grade, perhaps, and would take up too much of my writing time here.

: ) ------------- ( :

Katy wrote:I can sit here in 2007 and tell you how much schizophrenia and borderline personality disorder affect my life.

In a way, the BPD is good news. If your paranoid schizophrenia is pretty much a manifestation of severe BPD rather than an organic process, the etiology is different and you could get all better through learning to use reason and taking personal responsibility for your actions and inactions.

Hunted:
I don't disagree with what Trigg is saying. Nazis can find plenty of encouragement in Nietzsche... but that is because they misinterpret it.

I don't need to pull out a different Nietzsche saying, or describe him any further than Trigg does. Trigg says in that passage that Nietzsche finds individuals free from the herd to be the most noble humans, that he believes in a deterministic universe, and that he does not believe that advanced cultures are any more moral than so-called "primitive" ones. Life exploits: the West uses the cheap labour of the East. Trees in a jungle fight for the sunlight.

You don't need to be a Nazi to believe these things. In fact, when a Nazi takes this and uses it to justify his exploitation -- or somehow forgets that the mere fact of being a Nazi makes him no longer an individual -- he is not interpreting Nietzsche correctly.

Because Nietzsche was able to describe the world in immoral terms does not mean that he himself lacked morals. I fully agree with David that Nietzsche would have been silenced by the Nazi regime, were he alive to prevent his writings from being altered and misread. He was no Heidegger.

"In The Will to Power, a number of aphorisms present solutions to the decadence of Europe and the World. In aphorism 862, Nietzsche proposes a doctrine of breeding and annihilation:

A doctrine is needed powerful enough to work as a breeding agent: strengthening the strong, paralyzing and destructive for the world weary. The annihilation of the decaying races. Decay of Europe.-The annihilation of slavish evaluations.-Dominion over the earth as a means of producing a higher type.-The annihilation of the tartuffery called 'morality.' The annihilation of suffrage universel; i.e. the system through which the lowest natures prescribe themselves as laws for the higher.-The annihilation of mediocrity and its acceptance (The one sided, individuals – peoples; to strike for fullness of nature through the pairing of opposites: race mixture to this end). The new courage – no a priori truths…"


Nietzsche's Influence on Hitler

But Will to Power was published by his sister, so I'm not sure we can say he wanted this published as it was.

Jamesh, you could just as easily turn that passage around and use it to explain and justify the fall of Nazism -- that it was the last cry of a dying ideology that couldn't survive Nietzsche's thought. The Nazi obsession with Nietzsche could have been caused by the fact that Hitler could not quite understand him.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: In a way, the BPD is good news. If your paranoid schizophrenia is pretty much a manifestation of severe BPD rather than an organic process, the etiology is different and you could get all better through learning to use reason and taking personal responsibility for your actions and inactions.

Actually, it looks like both, along side a few other issues, are the result of brain damage, so not such good news. But - only the preliminary tests to show that have been done. Medicaid doesn't like the other tests, so god knows when or if they ever will be. Which makes it less treatable. :(

Trevor:

Wether or not Nietzsche himself was immoral is completely beside the point. The point is he tells us that traditional morality does not have to be followed, that there is no universal truth or set of morals, which ultimately means that he can not contradict himself by then choking up that you have to follow at least a few sets of morals. If this is the case you had better find me a quote and set my mind at ease so I can see a list of Nietzsche's so-called "acceptable morals".

And yes, once you are a Nazi you are no longer an individual, in a certain sense, but does that mean that the ordinary law-abiding yet intellectual and creative individual is not also a mere sheep because he "follows orders"? where do you draw the line of what an individual is and what it is not? We know we have to follow rules to prevent society from crumbling. Does this make us sheep? Mere puppets of our imagined universal morality? Or puppets of logic? In a certain sense, of course, logic does connect to morality. I believe, contrary to most people on this form, that logic and morality are totally intertwined. but that's beside the point.

Anyway, I am sure Nietzsche was disturbed by the Nazi regime, but he helped breed that bogus ideology when he piped up with his ideas of rejecting traditional morality and truth, wether he liked it or not. Nietzsche proposed merely a society that we all want, the dream world of creating your own standards, when the reality will always be that we have to compromise and need the sheep who work at the cafes and sweep the streets. Then again, nothing prevents those sheep from being creative geniuses in their spare time, as could be the case with a nazi soldier when he was not in battle.

Hunted,

The point is he tells us that traditional morality does not have to be followed, that there is no universal truth or set of morals, which ultimately means that he can not contradict himself by then choking up that you have to follow at least a few sets of morals.

That was not the point he made. He was making the point that traditional morality is immoral by its own standards. Morality is one form of life trying to overcome another. I would be very careful saying that Nietzsche said there was no universal truth, but it is true that he said there was no universal set of morals.

Although Nietzsche had no problem with contradicting himself, he would not be making a contradiction if he were to propose a different morality: all he needs to do is say "well, this isn't meant to be universal, but anyone who believes in [whatever] would be wise to agree with me."

If this is the case you had better find me a quote and set my mind at ease so I can see a list of Nietzsche's so-called "acceptable morals".

See Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Part 4. The longest single section in the book -- I can't remember the title of the section off-hand, but you should be able to find a translation online -- involves all the "higher men" sitting around discussing what features the Overman might have.

If you read yourself into it, you will make the exact same mistake that the Nazis made.

And yes, once you are a Nazi you are no longer an individual, in a certain sense, but does that mean that the ordinary law-abiding yet intellectual and creative individual is not also a mere sheep because he "follows orders"?

Yes. If he is ordinary, law-abiding, intellectual, and creative -- he is probably working for a university, some businessman, etc.

He is not free.

where do you draw the line of what an individual is and what it is not? We know we have to follow rules to prevent society from crumbling. Does this make us sheep?

You value society too much, and have a lot of faith that the rules that your society happens to have are the ones that prevent it from crumbling.

Societies quite naturally don't crumble, because people tend to like being herded together in big groups. It's like a herd of cows crumbling... they might stampede, but the herd sure as hell doesn't crumble.

Mere puppets of our imagined universal morality? Or puppets of logic?

These are different things. If you imagine a universal morality, then you are foolish. There is such thing as universal logic, though, and not being a "puppet" of logic is identical to behaving illogically. That said, I don't think many people have to worry about being puppets to logic.

In a certain sense, of course, logic does connect to morality. I believe, contrary to most people on this form, that logic and morality are totally intertwined. but that's beside the point.

Do you know what logic is? How does, say, a syllogism, prescribe a system of ethics?

Anyway, I am sure Nietzsche was disturbed by the Nazi regime, but he helped breed that bogus ideology when he piped up with his ideas of rejecting traditional morality and truth, wether he liked it or not.

The Nazis did not need really need his help. With or without him, they would have done many vile things.

Nietzsche was nothing more than a cover to keep intellectuals busy. His ideas, carefully edited, can say something entirely different than his intended message.

Nietzsche proposed merely a society that we all want

He did not "merely" do that. He made society-wide proposals near the end of his writing career, in a few passing jots in his notebook -- notes that he probably did not actually intend to publish.

A lot of his writing was psychology and personal ethics. He delved into aesthetics, the minds of geniuses, and metaphysics (including his famous Eternal Recurrence: an entirely unscientific rebuttal of Darwinian evolution that, if philosophically valid, makes natural selection trivial). Occasionally, he would whine about his loneliness, or make disparaging comments about women. He couldn't stop picking at the scab of Christianity. He poked fun at universities and academics. He made a lot of terribly bad jokes, as well as some amazingly funny ones. Taking his entire corpus together, I simply do not see a Nazi. I see a philosopher who hadn't yet learned how to stop writing.

the dream world of creating your own standards, when the reality will always be that we have to compromise and need the sheep who work at the cafes and sweep the streets.

The dream world: living entirely on your own in the wilderness. It's not really that much of a dream, so much as getting back to the basics.

Then again, nothing prevents those sheep from being creative geniuses in their spare time, as could be the case with a nazi soldier when he was not in battle.

The willingness to compromise destroys the capacity for genius.

David has a translation of Zarathustra up here:

Thus Spake Zarathustra

Book 4, Section 73.

I will look into it. promise.

Excellent. I didn't mean to dispute your claims that your family is selfish and egotistical in any way. It's just Nietzsche is a philosopher that has a very bad reputation that he doesn't really deserve, and this ends up causing him to be read most often by the sorts of people who are least capable of understanding him.

His anti-semitic and unphilosophical sister ended up in charge of his journals and publishing rights after he went insane, and she took advantage of the opportunity to alter his writings. The Nazis perpetuated this crime.

His originals have since been discovered and published, but the damage has been done. "Nietzschian" has become almost synonymous with "Machiavellian", which is a shame because, honestly, its meaning should be much closer to "Classicism".