shouldn't specific sciences be outlawed?
Take psychiatry. Why is it needed?
Determining who is mentally healthy is highly subjective. And the DSM definition is just empty PR gimmicks.
The common definition of mental illness per society is “not doing the norm”, but normalcy is subjective as all know… lol.. besides, to many good health is following some metaphysical norm, not actual science.
Who even on this site is healthy or not? it’s impossible to determine.
do the opinions of others offend you? if so why?
It’s a fact there is no means to determine mental illness.
people can have ulterior motives in sciences; they may place profit before care, but that is the same problem all over society.
Good psychiatrists are just that, there is diagnostics and treatment; chemical imbalances in the brain need to be treated, there is money in selling pharmaceuticals so there is the temptation to go that way when they don’t have to. A lot of solutions can be found in lifestyle factors.
Then there is therapy; good therapists really just listen and ask occasional strategic questions, which is really about the patient working through it and finding the answers themselves in a way that makes sense to them.
So you’re saying that mental illness isn’t subjective? If so, how? All of us on this forum can probably cite how each of us are healthy or not. it’s as subjective as morals or taste in films.
Take me, some here may say I am ill since I have “weird” beliefs, but then I would say they are since they care about how strangers online relate to them and don’t get reality properly. who is right or wrong?
It’s true that no one can be a 100% healthy when there’s always influence, circulation and adaptation. But the irony in your post is in this: Being a danger to yourself or someone else is part of the law and the science is not even complete when it’s always trying to explain where the danger comes from.
Danger is subjective. but then yes, mental health is a spent concept.