On Psychiatry: Intellectualization in Psychology

the following is a draft and not the final copy  

My argument is the following: I believe that intellectualizing has been treated quite unfairly as a immature coping mechanism, when it should be the only coping mechanism in the greatest possible human. 


1. Aristotle's human nature and virtue ethics. 
- What separates a man from an animal? 
- Aristotle believes that it is our rational nature that separates us. An animal cannot act morally because it cannot reason, man can reason and therefore he can be held accountable for his actions.  
- His moral thesis is Natural Law Theory, where one is supposed to fulfill their nature.
- If the nature of man is rational, then the highest good is contemplation of the good. 
- If the highest good is using our rational faculties to contemplate the good, then emotions are just a mere means to an end. 

2. Kant vs Hume on moral philosophy

Kant and Hume have differing views on what the grounding of morality is. Kant does not think we can ground our morality in emotions, so he seeks to ground it in reason. But Hume cannot find morality in reason, so he sees morality as only an extension of our passions. 

Therefore, they differ in the way they approach motivation for moral behavior. Because Kant thinks that we can ground morality in rationality, he believes that to perform any moral action with the motivation other than for the good itself is to do wrong. For example, if I only donate to poor people because I want to feel good about myself or for praise from others, then I do not do good. Goodness must be done for goodness's sake, duty for duty's sake. Anything else is a perversion of goodness. 

For Hume, however, because he cannot find morality in reason, morality can only be an extension of one's emotions. Thus, right and wrong are no longer objective appraisals but are a product of passion. To illustrate, Nieztsche says that "If you kill a cockroach, you are a hero; if you kill a butterfly, you are bad. Morality has aesthetic standards." 

Hume's theory of moral motivation also lines up closely with his moral philosophy. He says that 

Now, the question of whether moral behavior can be compelled by reason along may be an unsolvable fact. I am a Kantian, but I do not need for it to be 

3. Emotions as a means to an end, truth as a higher duty. 
- End: Rationalizing, 
- Emotions only help us get there, 

Much of therapy is concerned with regulating emotions. For example, in CBT training, by modulating faulty cognitive beliefs, we can learn to regulate emotions better. This kind of therapy uses beliefs in service of regulating emotions. 

But what if our duty to truth is higher than our duty to regulate our emotions, then we cannot wantonly change our beliefs just so we can attain a more pragmatic result. Thus, psychiatry, as it currently is, is hopelessly pragmatic in the service of obtaining "mental health", or "wellness". 

Wellness is a good aim.  Erik Erikson said that wellness is the ability to love, play, and work.  But if you aren't a utilitarian, then you don't think that wellness should be the highest good. Obviously, it is among the goods, but it is not the final good. The final good, of course, is the pursuit of rationality.  

For example, take God. 
- For Freud, belief in God is an immature defense mechanism which acts as a paternal figure in the absence of security. 
- For other psychologists, they would gladly endorse church-going if it would help someone get over substance abuse. 
- But in all of this talk by psychologists/psychiatrists, it always seems like God is a mere means to an end. Belief in God is a purely pragmatic affair. Who wants to treat God like a vending machine? Does God actually exist? And if we treat God as a mere vending machine, what does that say about our philosophical commitments? Our ethical commitments towards the grounding of being and value? The implications of this kind of pragmatic thinking are extremely philosophically devastating towards ethical behavior and epistemological soundness. 

4. Psychodynamic Psychoanalysis as a Theory of Rationality. 
\\Insight-based therapy
\\Understanding the self -- this violent digging down into the self as a means to explore the truth. It is a method of intellectualizing using a theory of behavior that can adequately understand truth. 
Truth about the self changes behavior naturally. But the aim is not merely behavioral change, but an understanding of truth in and of itself.  

5. The Sage: The greatest possible human being 

- Virtue ethics as the most adequate moral theory in psychiatry
- Focused on the person rather than the act

--

Jeffrey Luk, 2Lt, USAF, MSC

Air Force Medical Student, Class of 2028

Uniformed Services University

732-925-7268

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Thoughts about cosmetic surgery, insecurity, and self hate

Suppose I got plastic surgery to fix my nose. WhenI have a child and see my own features reflected in them, do I begin to resent them? Part of me thinks so. Cosmetic surgery is more than just a procedure to make me feel beautiful. It is also a rejection of my true authentic biological self (which, one can argue, is not me, in the sense that I am an embodied mind). But it says something about me — and even if I can’t put a finger on it, I doubt it is something positive.  Unconsciously, one might begin to imprint these insecurities onto his or her children. I think it’s sad that children are brought up to hate themselves in the same way that their parents do.  Note that this doesn’t just apply to cosmetic surgery. Certain flavors of interracial marriages, self-hatred of one’s own height/beautiful features, extreme misandry/mysogyny, internalized racism/hatred of their own race, or even genetic disabilities may have one developing insecurity such that one begins to become increas...
Read more

Revisiting Goodness

lukj: We ought to do good!    Felix: What is goodness? Is it just survival?  lukj: No, I don't think so. I don't think goodness is reducible to survival.    Felix: Then is goodness reducible to some other terms? Can we measure goodness as simply psychological pleasure? Or fitness? lukj: I don't think so. I think goodness is irreducible! We might ask, what is goodness, but we cannot put it into any other terms. There is no further fact of the matter.  Felix: Isn't that incoherent? Doesn't that make goodness transcendent? And because there are no observable transcendent things, it doesn't actually exist?  lukj: I think there are transcendent things, and we can observe them in everyday life! Take love, for example. If I were to tell my significant other that I love them because it fires chemicals in my brain, or because I am evolutionarily wired to love them, or any other non-transcendent meaning, then I devalue the concept of love.  Felix: Then why ...
Read more

The Resilience of a Man

 Okay, forgive me for being parasocial. I'm watching jasontheween's prom night stream and the vibes are absolutely off. Before, Jason and his date Sakura got matching nail designs -- with Sakura having a "J" drawn on her nails. But later on in the night, Sakura half jokingly tells him that the "J" isn't for him but for his cameraman Jawhn. Jason asks her to take it back. She doesn't. The vibes immediately fall off. The car ride back is awkward as hell. It's obvious Jason wants to say something and Sakura's talking just to talk.  When they get back, Jason's friends are all telling him to keep shooting his shot and don't take the joke too seriously. But Jason's never had something like this happen to him so publicly. Yea, he's been "lil bro'd" before, but not to the extent of being in such a cuck position. It's absolutely infuriating to be put in that position. His friends are correct to say that he should take...
Read more