(May 9, 2015 at 6:24 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:(May 9, 2015 at 3:11 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Whether a particular mental process, or set of processes, are labeled "mental illness" or not is a function of attitude towards those thought processes. It is not like finding a virus and saying, aha, there is the problem! It is that some thoughts, or sets of thoughts, are judged to be sufficiently different from what is judged to be good that they are given that particular label. It is a value judgement about a state of affairs, not an objective analysis of the state of affairs.
With all due respect, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Name three diagnoses that fit the pattern you are claiming.
The very definition of "mental illness" ties it to social norms:
Quote:A mental disorder, also called a mental illness or psychiatric disorder, is a mental or behavioral pattern or anomaly that causes either suffering or an impaired ability to function in ordinary life (disability), and which is not a developmental or social norm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder
"Impaired ability to function in ordinary life" means that one has a problem with dealing with the society in which one lives. And what will be incompatible with ordinary functioning in a society is largely a matter of the society in which one lives.
As for the claim that religion would be a mental illness if it were not socially accepted, think about someone claiming to have an invisible friend, with magically abilities, who was a guide to the person's life, affecting their social interactions with others, with seemingly arbitrary prohibitions and arbitrary required conduct. If that were not common and a social norm, it would be fucking crazy.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
