Albert Einstein, eminent physist, ardent humanitarian and devoted socialist, said the following in a May 1949 article in Monthly Review:
"This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career."
Such explains to a large degree how our society operates and why it is sick, terribly unhealthy. If dissenting from the societal norm of competition and the corresponding worship of acquisitive success deems one as mentally ill, as ardent proponents of capitalism suggest, then I am as mentally ill as Prof. Einstein.
I would also add Erich Fromm and Bertrand Russell to the list of persons who viewed capitalism as contributing to a sick society. There are many others. In fact, the greatest minds have never supported such a crippling system.
However, there are such things as delusional beliefs and shared delusions. I don’t generally call people crazy. However, it is very strange to be around people in religions which have beliefs which seem almost identical to the delusions a person has when psychotic such as the idea that Satanic forces can be in toys or shampoo or board games, etc. You watch these people discuss things in different youtube channels and you see them reinforce a wholly magical conception of their reality—where, e.g., your desire not to go out with your friends on Saturday night because you feel tired is the devil intervening and talking you out of it because you need to go to their function in order to find a husband —and the devil doesn’t want you to find a husband.
These are actual conversations I’ve seen on youtube. They are attempting to pull other people into this world view that they lack all agency and the devil is constantly controlling their minds.
One can hear it on Christian radio as well—people are given a narrative that if they adopt they will also be embracing many psychotic features such as grandiosity and paranoia. However, they usually don’t become fully immersed in their delusions (though there is a risk of this) to the degree that they cannot function.
These religious groups engage in manipulation and so forth. They end up getting people into a state which is not too dissimilar to a psychotic state but is more balanced. When functional, it perhaps is more like a highly imaginative child’s state. I would not call it healthy!
Mental illness vs health must always be defined, in some capacity, by the normative. There is no description in nature or objective account that says it is bad to have psychotic delusions of your organs being replaced, or being so depressed that you want to kill yourself. That fundamentally involves a judgement (even if it seems easy and obvious, and even though it is informed by reality)
I also think it is quite a sleight of hand to say that condemning self-immolation is equivalent to condemning all heterodox beliefs. Nobody is earnestly arguing that having different beliefs in and of itself is not something we should say constitutes illness. Feeling sad or upset should not be considered illness.
I do have some sympathy for your line of reasoning, but I think it is perfectly reasonable to consider the desire to self immolate in the context that this individual did to be considered illness however. It falls well outside cultural norms and involves harm to self and fails rationality.
Your last sentence exemplifies the line of reasoning I am criticizing. Most serious change agents have been directly at odds with cultural norms and therefore had their reasoning dismissed. What's more they have usually braved serious risk of harm (assassination, persecution, lost of employment, marginalization, imprisonment, being deemed "crazy"). My contention is that self-immolation falls in this category of heretical agents of change ,though I agree it certainly on the more extreme side. Then again as I argue and my previous piece, if we are going to claim that self-sacrifice is inherently "irrational" then we will need to describe soldiers who sacrifice themselves for their comrades as irrational and perhaps unwell along with parents or even strangers who jump in front of bullets with death all but certain to save children or perfect strangers.
Rarely can a behavior be judged out of context. I personally feel that self-immolation is not intrinsically “ill” - e.g I wouldn’t project my norm to monks who have done it in protest in the past.
I think it’s always fair to try and delimit mental illness (lord knows way too much has been sucked up into it.) But in a lot of your contra examples though, there are things that make them categorically different - risking unemployment or persecution is the not the same as actively lighting yourself on fire. I think it begs the question of what you would consider to be ill.
Lighting oneself on fire for no reason would certainly count as illness. Finding pleasure in hurting others would, too. Adopting supremacist beliefs claiming that one kind of person or group of people has greater value as human beings or persons than another kind of people would be another example of a kind of mental lack, one that it is worth noting many otherwise "smart" people might have. Though I wouldn't recommend or even encourage anyone to sacrifice themselves for another person--i think that is a clearly supererogatory ethical action--I do recognize it as an expression of profound love of others and commitment to principles such as moral equality and opposition to the destruction of innocent life. I see such commitments as clearly rooted in reason. In part II, which comes out soon, I will sketch out a basic definition of mental health based on humanistic psychology. Such a definition gives us a better frame of reference for evaluating health and sickness.
Bushnell reminded me of Thich Quang Duc’s (in)famous self-immolation in 1963. However, I don’t know the specifics of the Bushnell case and so it is impossible to say anything definite. Regardless, I will say this: if we accept the wholesale murder of innocents, who are we to condemn suicide as a means of protest? If you condone one (murder), you have to condone the other (suicide). Every suicide, if it is done in protest and is not aimed at destroying other lives, suggests some circumstance that would make life worth living. There is value in that.
Yes, thank you for taking the time to add a corrective/counter voice to the conservative/unkind/ungenerous/limited thinking of those who spoke publicly and in ignorance of Aaron's heroic sacrifice. Ah, but we all have our own timing & lesson plan, on when and how to awaken from our assorted avidyas - ignorances. Another opportunity to find within ourselves compassion for those who do not see the beauty and wisdom of Aaron's plea. The never ending quest for patience, discernment and right relationship. We've all come a looong way. There are many ways that I am only comfortable being a heretic. Other areas I prefer to rest in the comfort of conformity. We do what we can. Thanks for the reflections and taking us all up a notch with you.
I'm new to you and your writing, but so far I find you to be wise and your writing to be extremely valuable. Thank you for taking the time to express these critical thoughts so well. It will arm me with better, more concise ways to advocate for justice in the face of my government's inhuman actions. I aspire to do the same for others.
I don't know if people are questioning Bushnell's sanity merely because he didn't conform to social norms. I think they are appealing to a natural law that transcends social norms, i.e. that it is natural for us to preserve our lives and unnatural for us to seek to destroy our own lives.
You raise an interesting point that I'll be addressing in a subsequent installment of this series. Thanks for sharing your perspective. For now I'll simply say that people engage in activities on behalf of causes that put them into harms way--such as joining the military, saving a comrade in the battlefield, or saving a stranger during a mass shooting--that does not evoke the use of such epithets.
I suppose we would want to make a distinction between people who are mentally ill, and therefore so detached from reality that even what appears to be a great sacrifice might well be inspired by delusion, and those who have mental and emotional weaknesses. Clearly none of us are perfectly mentally well. But your point is also taken that we might learn and be inspired by precisely those who are quite flawed.
Albert Einstein, eminent physist, ardent humanitarian and devoted socialist, said the following in a May 1949 article in Monthly Review:
"This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career."
Such explains to a large degree how our society operates and why it is sick, terribly unhealthy. If dissenting from the societal norm of competition and the corresponding worship of acquisitive success deems one as mentally ill, as ardent proponents of capitalism suggest, then I am as mentally ill as Prof. Einstein.
I would also add Erich Fromm and Bertrand Russell to the list of persons who viewed capitalism as contributing to a sick society. There are many others. In fact, the greatest minds have never supported such a crippling system.
Thanks for this thoughtful piece of writing, Jeffrey. I'm sad for Aaron Bushnell, but have a lot of respect for the statement he made.
I share your view. Thanks for reading and the kind words.
I agree with most of this.
However, there are such things as delusional beliefs and shared delusions. I don’t generally call people crazy. However, it is very strange to be around people in religions which have beliefs which seem almost identical to the delusions a person has when psychotic such as the idea that Satanic forces can be in toys or shampoo or board games, etc. You watch these people discuss things in different youtube channels and you see them reinforce a wholly magical conception of their reality—where, e.g., your desire not to go out with your friends on Saturday night because you feel tired is the devil intervening and talking you out of it because you need to go to their function in order to find a husband —and the devil doesn’t want you to find a husband.
These are actual conversations I’ve seen on youtube. They are attempting to pull other people into this world view that they lack all agency and the devil is constantly controlling their minds.
One can hear it on Christian radio as well—people are given a narrative that if they adopt they will also be embracing many psychotic features such as grandiosity and paranoia. However, they usually don’t become fully immersed in their delusions (though there is a risk of this) to the degree that they cannot function.
These religious groups engage in manipulation and so forth. They end up getting people into a state which is not too dissimilar to a psychotic state but is more balanced. When functional, it perhaps is more like a highly imaginative child’s state. I would not call it healthy!
A fascinating article - and commentaries/responses. Thank you for this discussion!
Thanks as always for taking the time to read and comment!
Mental illness vs health must always be defined, in some capacity, by the normative. There is no description in nature or objective account that says it is bad to have psychotic delusions of your organs being replaced, or being so depressed that you want to kill yourself. That fundamentally involves a judgement (even if it seems easy and obvious, and even though it is informed by reality)
I also think it is quite a sleight of hand to say that condemning self-immolation is equivalent to condemning all heterodox beliefs. Nobody is earnestly arguing that having different beliefs in and of itself is not something we should say constitutes illness. Feeling sad or upset should not be considered illness.
I do have some sympathy for your line of reasoning, but I think it is perfectly reasonable to consider the desire to self immolate in the context that this individual did to be considered illness however. It falls well outside cultural norms and involves harm to self and fails rationality.
Your last sentence exemplifies the line of reasoning I am criticizing. Most serious change agents have been directly at odds with cultural norms and therefore had their reasoning dismissed. What's more they have usually braved serious risk of harm (assassination, persecution, lost of employment, marginalization, imprisonment, being deemed "crazy"). My contention is that self-immolation falls in this category of heretical agents of change ,though I agree it certainly on the more extreme side. Then again as I argue and my previous piece, if we are going to claim that self-sacrifice is inherently "irrational" then we will need to describe soldiers who sacrifice themselves for their comrades as irrational and perhaps unwell along with parents or even strangers who jump in front of bullets with death all but certain to save children or perfect strangers.
Rarely can a behavior be judged out of context. I personally feel that self-immolation is not intrinsically “ill” - e.g I wouldn’t project my norm to monks who have done it in protest in the past.
I think it’s always fair to try and delimit mental illness (lord knows way too much has been sucked up into it.) But in a lot of your contra examples though, there are things that make them categorically different - risking unemployment or persecution is the not the same as actively lighting yourself on fire. I think it begs the question of what you would consider to be ill.
Lighting oneself on fire for no reason would certainly count as illness. Finding pleasure in hurting others would, too. Adopting supremacist beliefs claiming that one kind of person or group of people has greater value as human beings or persons than another kind of people would be another example of a kind of mental lack, one that it is worth noting many otherwise "smart" people might have. Though I wouldn't recommend or even encourage anyone to sacrifice themselves for another person--i think that is a clearly supererogatory ethical action--I do recognize it as an expression of profound love of others and commitment to principles such as moral equality and opposition to the destruction of innocent life. I see such commitments as clearly rooted in reason. In part II, which comes out soon, I will sketch out a basic definition of mental health based on humanistic psychology. Such a definition gives us a better frame of reference for evaluating health and sickness.
Bushnell reminded me of Thich Quang Duc’s (in)famous self-immolation in 1963. However, I don’t know the specifics of the Bushnell case and so it is impossible to say anything definite. Regardless, I will say this: if we accept the wholesale murder of innocents, who are we to condemn suicide as a means of protest? If you condone one (murder), you have to condone the other (suicide). Every suicide, if it is done in protest and is not aimed at destroying other lives, suggests some circumstance that would make life worth living. There is value in that.
Yes, that's an appropriate comparison. I explored that connection and why we should make the distinction between suicide and self-sacrifice in this piece: https://jeffreynall.substack.com/p/self-sacrifice-is-not-suicide-understanding
Yes, thank you for taking the time to add a corrective/counter voice to the conservative/unkind/ungenerous/limited thinking of those who spoke publicly and in ignorance of Aaron's heroic sacrifice. Ah, but we all have our own timing & lesson plan, on when and how to awaken from our assorted avidyas - ignorances. Another opportunity to find within ourselves compassion for those who do not see the beauty and wisdom of Aaron's plea. The never ending quest for patience, discernment and right relationship. We've all come a looong way. There are many ways that I am only comfortable being a heretic. Other areas I prefer to rest in the comfort of conformity. We do what we can. Thanks for the reflections and taking us all up a notch with you.
I'm new to you and your writing, but so far I find you to be wise and your writing to be extremely valuable. Thank you for taking the time to express these critical thoughts so well. It will arm me with better, more concise ways to advocate for justice in the face of my government's inhuman actions. I aspire to do the same for others.
Thank you taking time to both read my work and share your thoughts. I am glad you find my work helpful and to now be in dialogue with you.
I don't know if people are questioning Bushnell's sanity merely because he didn't conform to social norms. I think they are appealing to a natural law that transcends social norms, i.e. that it is natural for us to preserve our lives and unnatural for us to seek to destroy our own lives.
You raise an interesting point that I'll be addressing in a subsequent installment of this series. Thanks for sharing your perspective. For now I'll simply say that people engage in activities on behalf of causes that put them into harms way--such as joining the military, saving a comrade in the battlefield, or saving a stranger during a mass shooting--that does not evoke the use of such epithets.
ZioTurd Genocider Shitpiro is the one with the mental illness!
Zionism is a disease. Speaking TRUTH is the cure! Free Palestine 🇵🇸
I suppose we would want to make a distinction between people who are mentally ill, and therefore so detached from reality that even what appears to be a great sacrifice might well be inspired by delusion, and those who have mental and emotional weaknesses. Clearly none of us are perfectly mentally well. But your point is also taken that we might learn and be inspired by precisely those who are quite flawed.