Can a disinterest in life be rational or justified?

[Nietzsche]

Hey folks.

If an individual feels a lack of interest or consent in being alive, can it ever be considered rational, or are such people destined to be diagnosed as mentally ill etc?

Define what you mean by "lack of interest".

 

[Aquitaine]

Define what you mean by "lack of interest".

Errr okay, a general lack of desire to participate in life/be alive, as though you could die tomorrow and you wouldn't care etc.

 

[Willamena]

Do you believe it is a mental illness?

Yes. Depression is a mental illness with a mental remedy.

 

[George-ananda]

Hey folks.

If an individual feels a lack of interest or consent in being alive, can it ever be considered rational, or are such people destined to be diagnosed as mentally ill etc?

I could imagine a lack of interest if I had a atheist-materialist position. That in itself would not be mental illness in my opinion.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Might I address that for the most part atheists are normal people.
They find their own meaning in the world and their own reasons to get depressed, just as any theist does.
Being a materialist or an atheist has no direct correlation to lacking interest in being alive. At all.

It's a human thing, not a belief thing.

 

[Erebus]

Hey folks.

If an individual feels a lack of interest or consent in being alive, can it ever be considered rational, or are such people destined to be diagnosed as mentally ill etc?

Interesting question. If you were to tell a doctor that you had a lack of interest in being alive, there's a pretty good chance they would consider you depressed and therefore mentally ill. There's usually a sort of points system involved with diagnosing somebody as depressed (in the UK anyway) and a lack of interest in life would make you score quite highly in several areas. In fact, simply not enjoying life as a matter of course is enough to have you labelled depressed.

That said, rationality is relative. Perhaps it's possible to have a rational lack of interest in life, despite the almost inevitable label "depressed."

 

[Abishai100]

Traveling Salesman: Motel Monk

In our modern world of profit-gauged networking (i.e., eTrade), it does seem that etiquette is simply tied to profiteerism, which is why Hollywood (USA) makes movies such as "The Wolf of Wall Street" [2013].

If you're a traveling businessman working for a small start-up, and you go city-to-city trying to sell/market your company's platform to investors and corporations, you may have to stay at various motels/hotels. As you enjoy the amenities (such as room service) of these lodging establishments, maybe you'll think about how comfort and luxury are wed to monetary ambition. You might equally say, "This city and the motel/hotel I stayed in were pleasant" and "This city and the motel/hotel I stayed in were profitable."

This is the sort of thinking that highlights the iconic book "Death of a Salesman" (Arthur Miller).

If you can balance profit with compassion for your fellow man, then perhaps capitalism will not make you a 'spiritually disinterested salesman.'

 

[Laika]

Hey folks.

If an individual feels a lack of interest or consent in being alive, can it ever be considered rational, or are such people destined to be diagnosed as mentally ill etc?

This is a fairly good definition of depression. there are rational ways to become depressed but the key is a belief in self-denial; that either by choice or some power greater than us we are fated to be unhappy and not to enjoy lifes pleasures. that "power" can be god but can also be a moral code or the feeling that others will or have rejected you in terms of your career, relationships, freinds etc. it is reasonable to assume that humans are naturally hedonistic, so a "lack of interest or consent in being alive" is therefore a mental disorder, but that does not exclude the possibility there are rational reasons or experiences behind people reaching that conclusion. it is the ability to see past those reasons and recognise that there are not absolute reflections of how the world works that offer a possibility for recovery.

 

[Aquitaine]

This is a fairly good definition of depression. there are rational ways to become depressed but the key is a belief in self-denial; that either by choice or some power greater than us we are fated to be unhappy and not to enjoy lifes pleasures. that "power" can be god but can also be a moral code or the feeling that others will or have rejected you in terms of your career, relationships, freinds etc. it is reasonable to assume that humans are naturally hedonistic, so a "lack of interest or consent in being alive" is therefore a mental disorder, but that does not exclude the possibility there are rational reasons or experiences behind people reaching that conclusion. it is the ability to see past those reasons and recognise that there are not absolute reflections of how the world works that offer a possibility for recovery.

But how do we go about finding the "correct" reflection on how the world works, or if even such thing exists?

 

[Quintessence]

Errr okay, a general lack of desire to participate in life/be alive, as though you could die tomorrow and you wouldn't care etc.

Then yes, that's a classic sign of clinical depression (a mental illness).

 

[Aquitaine]

Then yes, that's a classic sign of clinical depression (a mental illness).

Why is it though? At what point do we determine whose perspective on life is the "correct" one?
Is it circumstantial, as in, would it be considered odd not to be depressed in say North Korea?

 

[Quintessence]

Why is it though? At what point do we determine whose perspective on life is the "correct" one?
Is it circumstantial, as in, would it be considered odd not to be depressed in say North Korea?

People are diagnosed with mental illnesses whenever they have a condition that adversely affects their ability to enjoy their lives. It's not about considering an unbroken leg more "correct" than a broken leg - it's that it's pretty darned obvious that the person with a broken leg has impaired mobility compared to the person who doesn't. Mental illnesses are the same way.

But sure, if you want to follow philosophical rabbit holes to ridiculously impractical extremes, there's absolutely no reason why, there's absolutely no correct anything, and we're all just dumb naykid apes making it up as we go along. Pick the answer you like. It's what all us dumb naykid apes do anyway at the end of the day.

 

[Aquitaine]

People are diagnosed with mental illnesses whenever they have a condition that adversely affects their ability to enjoy their lives. It's not about considering an unbroken leg more "correct" than a broken leg - it's that it's pretty darned obvious that the person with a broken leg has impaired mobility compared to the person who doesn't. Mental illnesses are the same way.

But sure, if you want to follow philosophical rabbit holes to ridiculously impractical extremes, there's absolutely no reason why, there's absolutely no correct anything, and we're all just dumb naykid apes making it up as we go along. Pick the answer you like. It's what all us dumb naykid apes do anyway at the end of the day.

I wouldn't necessarily say it's "following to ridiculous ends", rather I'm just trying to get a better understanding what constitutes a healthy outlook on life, and what doesn't etc.

 

[Laika]

But how do we go about finding the "correct" reflection on how the world works, or if even such thing exists?

a mixture of ethical hedonism, sex-positivism and finding the desire for self-preservation so we don't do self-destructive things like drugs. generally listen to your emotions; if you feel depressed it means that- as a living organism- something is wrong.

 

[Erebus]

Why is it though? At what point do we determine whose perspective on life is the "correct" one?
Is it circumstantial, as in, would it be considered odd not to be depressed in say North Korea?

That's a question with an incredibly complex answer, so I'll try and boil it down to a few key points.

Firstly, determining who is or isn't mentally ill requires a norm to contrast them to. What this norm is will vary from culture to culture. In the UK, Africans are more likely to be labelled "bipolar" and Japanese people are more likely to be labeled "depressed". The reason is simply that African and Japanese culture expresses emotion in a way that doesn't quite mesh with UK norms. However, this means that UK doctors have to be more aware of these cultural differences and, if necessary, adjust the norm by which they measure mental illness accordingly.

Secondly, severity has a big impact on whether or not somebody is diagnosed as mentally ill. What makes one person highly organised and another obsessive compulsive? Put simply, it's the degree to which their behaviour deviates from the norm and impacts their lives. To go back to depression, part of the reason it's considered a mental illness is because it can dramatically affect a person's day to day life. Even discounting the most extreme expression of a depressed mind (i.e. suicide) a depressed person can find it significantly more difficult to find and maintain jobs and relationships.

So in short, you're kind of in the right ballpark. Cultural norms do impact the perception and diagnosis of mental illness* but cultural context isn't the only factor at play in mental illness.

*Interestingly, while some mental illnesses seem to be fairly universal, there are a few that are unique to certain cultures. If you want a classic example, google "Koro."

 

[Aquitaine]

Cheers for the input guys.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Hey folks.

If an individual feels a lack of interest or consent in being alive, can it ever be considered rational, or are such people destined to be diagnosed as mentally ill etc?

Every mind is always rational.
However every mind always has a limited perspective.
If you have ever survived a war, you will know that those who have never seen such
will see you as mentally ill. Not all wars have soldiers and guns.