Help with Depression

[Brant Gaede]

Ayn Rand also depicted suicide much more negatively, as an act of anger and revenge, in Atlas. This was based on a real-life experience of someone whom she knew who was a suicide's victim. It was so bad you had to know she couldn't have made it up for it didn't match up very well with her other material which was generally more positive. (The train tunnel disaster was more removed and abstract from an actual human reality.)

--Brant

Edited July 22, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[theandresanchez]

But despite these portrayals, Rand was fiercely committed to living.

Wouldn't it be something to feel what she did in all her passion and complexity--even if just for a moment?

Michael

If I am to surrender to death and pursue hedonism, ignoring the context of my existence, I imagine recreational drugs are more effective. And cheaper than anti-depressants+mood stabilizers+cognitive therapy.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Andre

[Brant Gaede]

But despite these portrayals, Rand was fiercely committed to living.

Wouldn't it be something to feel what she did in all her passion and complexity--even if just for a moment?

Michael

If I am to surrender to death and pursue hedonism, ignoring the context of my existence, I imagine recreational drugs are more effective. And cheaper than anti-depressants+mood stabilizers+cognitive therapy.

There is no hedonism in Objectivism.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Andre,

Brant's got a great point.

What do you know about Objectivism?

You sound like you don't know anything about it.

Michael

[theandresanchez]

Andre,

Brant's got a great point.

No, he does not. Rand explicitly rejected hedonism, yet this is the premise of YOUR post, which is what I was addressing. That values exist outside of the context of survival. There is no objectivist ethics without survival. There is no objectivist aesthethics without survival. There is still objectivist philosophy as such, but it is of no value to man. If you hold death as an absolute, you cannot be an objectivist.

What do you know about Objectivism?

A lot.

You sound like you don't know anything about it.

Why?

Edited July 22, 2011 by Andre

[Brant Gaede]

Andre,

Brant's got a great point.

What do you know about Objectivism?

You sound like you don't know anything about it.

Michael

I know what Andre is, but my lip is zipped.

--Brant

[theandresanchez]

Andre,

Brant's got a great point.

What do you know about Objectivism?

You sound like you don't know anything about it.

Michael

I know what Andre is, but my lip is zipped.

--Brant

What am I? Don't worry about your lips, you can type the answer.

[Brant Gaede]

Andre,

Brant's got a great point.

What do you know about Objectivism?

You sound like you don't know anything about it.

Michael

I know what Andre is, but my lip is zipped.

--Brant

What am I? Don't worry about your lips, you can type the answer.

You're stuck.

--Brant

[theandresanchez]

You're stuck.

--Brant

Tell me more.

[Fred Cole]

My own experiance has show me that two things help with depression:

1. Being around friends and loved ones.

Its harder to be depressed when you're around people and interacting with them. Playing games helps more when there are people around. Going into a dark basement and playing games by yourself is a recipe for more depression.

2. This song, I keep it on my iPod and use it as a pick-me-up when necessary. If that fails, I sing it, often to people who are depressed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1loyjm4SOa0

Edited July 22, 2011 by Fred Cole

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If you hold death as an absolute, you cannot be an objectivist.

Andre,

I think I see part of the communication problem here. Based on reading your posts above (which is pretty well illustrated by the comment I quote in this post), I have come to the following conclusions.

On the cognitive part, you make too many presumptions based on too little observation (at least in your posts). For instance, your understanding of the law of identity seems to be premised on speculation and deduction from abstractions of what you imagine should be, not premised on observation.

On the normative part, your posts are too cryptic to come to much of any conclusions whatsoever. So I don't know what is sincere and what is bullshit. But I get a sense of hostility beneath the surface.

I wish I had more time to probe this, but I have my own life to live and I am way behind in my projects.

Enjoy the forum.

I hope you find the answer to whatever it is that is eating you.

Michael

EDIT: Good Lord! You are from São Paulo? Dayaamm!

[BaalChatzaf]

There is still objectivist philosophy as such, but it is of no value to man. If you hold death as an absolute, you cannot be an objectivist.

I am not sure what you mean by holding death as an absolute. Death is a fact. We are all going to die. Why? The second law of thermodynamics holds. All organized energy exchange systems will eventually become disordered and they will dissipate. Entropy increases with time. Everything eventually wears out and falls apart. High grade energy does its thing and becomes attenuated energy incapable of doing physical work. This is just the way things are. Even so, there is no reason not to live, while living is physically possible.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Rich Engle]

One of the primal thoughts most people have is the issue of mortality, whether they choose to admit it, or not. Joseph Campbell had a lot of comforting things to say about it--if you look at his series "The Power of Myth" (with Bill Moyers interviewing him). This was done in the last couple of years before Campbell died. "Find your own bliss."

Also, my buddy Michael Dowd has some very good things to say about it in his books and other writings. He talks about how you can come to peace with it because it is a natural cycle within the universe's growth, more or less. It helps you lose the fear.

Michael Dowd website

Now, no need to go running just because he is a Christian. He is a very scientific person and the things he says about this topic are very astute and warming. I don't have the tract right here but if you look around in his stuff you can find all kinds of things by him, and other esteemed authors that address this topic.

If that is a part of it, Andre. I think it is always a root of it.

Namaste,

rde

[theandresanchez]

On the cognitive part, you make too many presumptions based on too little observation (at least in your posts). For instance, your understanding of the law of identity seems to be premised on speculation and deduction from abstractions of what you imagine should be, not premised on observation.

Objectivist ethics does not require living beings to be infalible in the maintenance of life, it merely requires them to choose, when the choice is open, life over death. The problem here is that you seem to think this is a range of the moment thing, "do I choose to live for another 15 minutes or not?". It is not, and certainly not in humans. Existence is a pre-condition for continued existence, and as such, the "short term" cannot be ignored. The human being suffering from a so-called "terminal illness" must choose to live day by day, because that is a pre-condition for his long term survival, not because he earns points in the game of life for having lived a few more days, or having experienced more pleasure during those days, or whatever. He cannot make the choice to live once he is dead. The alternative is range of the moment hedonism, because it means man is divorced from past and future. You are stuck in a game mentality. This is a classic psychological process of death (awareness) evasion known as "Terror Management". It is a process which Rand herself struggled with and which is a fundamental part of the human psyche, so I'm not going to pound at you for this. You can choose to be aware of this, or you can choose to evade it.

The unspoken truth is that Rand did not regard life as such to be the primary value, but freedom, which means the capacity to choose. Values do not depend on life in the sense of the capacity to exist and have experience, they depend on the capacity to choose between alternatives, to act as opposed to reacting. Planets have a conditional existence, but they have no choice in the matter. It is only within this context that values exist, and thus ethics is possible. Life is simply the primary requirement of this. Ethics is the study of a being's field of choice, and objectivism identifies the things (principles) that expand, sustain, or contract this field, particularly with regards to the human identity, in a long range context.

[Rich Engle]

On the cognitive part, you make too many presumptions based on too little observation (at least in your posts). For instance, your understanding of the law of identity seems to be premised on speculation and deduction from abstractions of what you imagine should be, not premised on observation.

Objectivist ethics does not require living beings to be infalible in the maintenance of life, it merely requires them to choose, when the choice is open, life over death. The problem here is that you seem to think this is a range of the moment thing, "do I choose to live for another 15 minutes or not?". It is not, and certainly not in humans. Existence is a pre-condition for continued existence, and as such, the "short term" cannot be ignored. The human being suffering from a so-called "terminal illness" must choose to live day by day, because that is a pre-condition for his long term survival, not because he earns points in the game of life for having lived a few more days, or having experienced more pleasure during those days, or whatever. He cannot make the choice to live once he is dead. The alternative is range of the moment hedonism, because it means man is divorced from past and future. You are stuck in a game mentality. This is a classic psychological process of death (awareness) evasion known as "Terror Management". It is a process which Rand herself struggled with and which is a fundamental part of the human psyche, so I'm not going to pound at you for this. You can choose to be aware of this, or you can choose to evade it.

The unspoken truth is that Rand did not regard life as such to be the primary value, but freedom, which means the capacity to choose. Values do not depend on life in the sense of the capacity to exist and have experience, they depend on the capacity to choose between alternatives, to act as opposed to reacting. Planets have a conditional existence, but they have no choice in the matter. It is only within this context that values exist, and thus ethics is possible. Life is simply the primary requirement of this. Ethics is the study of a being's field of choice, and objectivism identifies the things (principles) that expand, sustain, or contract this field, particularly with regards to the human identity, in a long range context.

(through megaphone): "Sir, put down the Rand books, and no one will get hurt. Exit the reading room with your hands interlaced on top of your head."

And as far as your comments about terminally ill patients, that just flat out made me want to bitch-slap you, because, well, even if you have up-close knowledge of such, that would make you even more clueless. Are you suffering from a terminal illness? If so, that would be a different thing, and I apologize. I know one of the strongest, venerable terminally ill men on the planet, and he would either tweak your nose or just start laughing at what you wrote.

Stop feeling sorry for yourself, man. And read something outside of Rand, for fuck's sake.

rde

wah, wah, wah.

[theandresanchez]

I am not sure what you mean by holding death as an absolute. Death is a fact. We are all going to die. Why? The second law of thermodynamics holds. All organized energy exchange systems will eventually become disordered and they will dissipate. Entropy increases with time. Everything eventually wears out and falls apart. High grade energy does its thing and becomes attenuated energy incapable of doing physical work. This is just the way things are.

You are confusing your model of reality with the actual thing. The actual reality invalidates this hypothesis. The second law of thermodynamics exists within a context which you are ignoring.

Even so, there is no reason not to live, while living is physically possible.

That may be, but embracing death as inevitable leads to one of two options: hedonism or apathy.

[theandresanchez]

(through megaphone): "Sir, put down the Rand books, and no one will get hurt. Exit the reading room with your hands interlaced on top of your head."

It would be a mistake to believe that I am obsessed with Rand's writings. Her books and articles only compose 99% of my reading material. See, I have a sense of humour. I haven't read any of her books in years, except for re-reading Philosophy Who Needs It a couple of weeks ago. Rand is very insightful, but she did not understand everything. I did not come here to discuss objectivism, I came here to discuss a personal problem. I have tried discussing this problem with other people before, people who wouldn't even recognize the name "Ayn Rand", but they were not helpful, so I thought I would try this, since Rand's philosophy is premised on the choice to live, not acceptance of death.

And as far as your comments about terminally ill patients, that just flat out made me want to bitch-slap you, because, well, even if you have up-close knowledge of such, that would make you even more clueless. Are you suffering from a terminal illness? If so, that would be a different thing, and I apologize. I know one of the strongest, venerable terminally ill men on the planet, and he would either tweak your nose or just start laughing at what you wrote.

Why?

[BaalChatzaf]

You are confusing your model of reality with the actual thing. The actual reality invalidates this hypothesis. The second law of thermodynamics exists within a context which you are ignoring.

The second law of thermodynamics has been more thoroughly tested than any other physical law. It has never been falsified in nearly two hundred years of testing. It is a fact of nature. The reality is that the Cosmos is wearing out. It will become thinner, cooler and eventually no more stars will shine. Life will not go on forever in this cosmos.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[theandresanchez]

The second law of thermodynamics has been more thoroughly tested than any other physical law. It has never been falsified in nearly two hundred years of testing. It is a fact of nature. The reality is that the Cosmos is wearing out. It will become thinner, cooler and eventually no more stars will shine. Life will not go on forever in this cosmos.

It is falsified by the current state of the universe. The second law of thermodynamics is the identification of a pattern which exists within a specific context. This pattern is a fact of nature. The wider extrapolation you are making is not.

[anthony]

Even so, there is no reason not to live, while living is physically possible.

That may be, but embracing death as inevitable leads to one of two options: hedonism or apathy.

Hi Andre,

Wow, that has to go into textbooks as the perfect False Dichotomy.

Caught between non-existence and non-existence, we exist.

How completely, is up to us, don't you think?

Tony

[Xray]

It's not such a quip as you think. Being in a clinical depression is entirely premised on death, the depressed person has forgotten how to live, believes he does not deserve to live, and wishes only not to live because life is unbearable, constant mental torture.

There is a quote, I forget the source-

"Acute clinical depression is a disease which left untreated, is nearly always fatal."

It's somewhat amusing that such words are used. Those who do not suffer from depression seem to die just as often as those who do.

The issue is about a fatal disease (high suicide rates associated with untreated depression I assume), not about the finiteness of life as such.

I have felt pretty much as you describe all of my life, and I'm now in my mid 60s. In my teens and twenties I thought frequently of suicide. ...

Thank you for so sharing your experience, JR. I was deeply moved by your account.

The fact is that life is a pile of shit. It consists mostly of pain, suffering, and boredom.

As I say, this feeling has never gone away.

Is there anything in your life you feel grateful for, Jeff?

Edited July 22, 2011 by Xray

[theandresanchez]

Wow, that has to go into textbooks as the perfect False Dichotomy.

Caught between non-existence and non-existence, we exist.

How completely, is up to us, don't you think?

There is no such thing as a degree of existence. What you are describing is precisely the hedonistic credo, which states that we should live life "to the fullest", the standard of "fullness" being pleasure versus pain or apathy. Am I mistaken? If yes, how?

[algernonsidney]

Now the big question: where do you actually find a competent therapist? There are certainly plenty of worthless ones out there.

Nothing like good, positive vibes. Feel better now, Andre? After Chris performed his particular form of voodoo?

Nathaniel Branden wrote some good stuff about anxiety. But you have to buy them, now. He has a good mp3 that might help. I mastered that one, originally; it was down to cassette tape and I brought in some pretty good guys to clean up the recording. Long time ago. Worth the five bucks, for sure. It could only help.

People like you are the reason why I was disappointed that Andre came here looking for help. Your attitude has only proven me right.

Andre has gotten more sympathy here than I expected. But I knew that some people would just use this thread as an excuse to be self-righteous and malevolent. I experienced the same thing between the IOS seminar in 1995 and 1996, and I have never gotten over it.

[Rich Engle]

Wow, that has to go into textbooks as the perfect False Dichotomy.

Caught between non-existence and non-existence, we exist.

How completely, is up to us, don't you think?

There is no such thing as a degree of existence. What you are describing is precisely the hedonistic credo, which states that we should live life "to the fullest", the standard of "fullness" being pleasure versus pain or apathy. Am I mistaken? If yes, how?

Well, you can say that kind of stuff, and be confident, but let's look at one fact--you are depressed, and you called in the Big Dogs for some help, right? So, whatever you are doing, thinking, however confident you are in your assumptions, your shit is not working. If it was, you would not be depressed--you would be joyous, which, by-the-way, is an appropriate condition for human living. You are, at the least, portraying misery. Consider your actions, consider your happiness level. All I get from your writing is various forms of logical/philosophical arguments, punctuated by a general tone of misery. Never once have you said anything about what you do, or enjoy. That means that your shit isn't working, and you could find something different. You are hanging on to something that is, apparently, dragging your miserable, sorry ass down.

So, you can have that. I have pretty hard skin to read that stuff, and I will help when I can, but eventually I will pull away because I can't stand the fucking drag, drafting. You are very close to becoming an energy vampire.

Man up. Choose who you want to be; either a miserable bastard, or maybe a person that loves waking up every morning.

rde

Good Luck On Your Mission!

[algernonsidney]

(DELETED FOR UNEXPECTED, UNUSUAL AND SERIOUS REASONS.)

Unfortunately, I think Jeff is right on the money here. The "self-deception" also explains why religion has survived for as long as it has. Some people have seen the bankruptcy of religion and have tried other things--Landmark Education, The Secret, and other baloney. And how many adults do you know who truly know how to have fun?

Incidentally, if you need chemicals to have fun, you don't know how to have fun. You will meet a lot of people who have this attitude, which tells me that a lot of people really are miserable.

Could you tell us a little more about yourself? Where are you about? How old are you about? Are you married? Single? With children?

The best "therapist" I have had is an acting coach here in Austin. I took classes from him and loved it. I think it helped because it synched the left and right hemispheres of my brain. It also got me "out of myself." Unfortunately, I also understand why so many people in the business end up using substances. If acting as a career was not basically a lottery ticket, I might consider it as a career.