|
|
|
|
|
by jaggederest
723 days ago
|
|
> namely, they are defined by the symptoms. This is what we see historically, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, in "body medicine". We're just at an earlier stage of understanding and treating psychiatric disorders. I assume in a couple hundred years we'll look back at the current state of the art as hopelessly outmoded. > In the case of mental disorders, they're essentially defined by the symptoms. To have depression is to be depressed. To have anxiety is to be anxious. What would it even mean to have depression without being depressed? What would it mean to have typhoid without an actual fever? The disease is something else, some causative factor that is not the actual symptom itself, but is no less real for that. > I just don't think that treating them through a strict biological-pathological lens is as useful as people think it is. Agreed, but that's with the current state of the art. I would be surprised indeed if by 2080 we didn't have a different lens to view these things through. |
|
Imo we'll come to see that these categorizations of mental disorders are far too simplistic