> Not only became adaption to the given reality the goal of development, but the pathological was seen as a failure to adapt to reality. The validity of that reality was not questioned. The sick carried the blame for being sick. That the pathological could sometimes be the only way to maintain autonomy itself in the face of pseudo-social realities was completely outside the ken of such a mode of thought.
-- Arno Gruen, "The Betrayal of the Self"
That people get depressed or sick in other ways isn't terribly surprising. Look at the world we're making for ourselves and others to live in. It's like toddlers getting sick when crawling on a floor so dirty you can hardly see the floor, and if our first and only reaction is to ask why would the toddler get sick and what kind of protective clothing could they wear, because we're unwilling to face those shitting on the floor, it does not take a scientist to see what's going on. Putting your head over a microscope like an ostrich is what's required to not see it.
Yes, there are actual intricate mechanisms. Just like there are for getting infected in an environment full of pathogens. I'm not even saying they are not interesting or worth studying and quantifying and whatnot. Microscopes are useful, for some things essential. But sometimes the lame, boring answer, like "the world is still too unjust, too many children get abused or neglected in so many ways, often enough because their parents get trampled on, too", is the correct one, that is, it's the correct first part, it requires then acting on that. Until that sentence is no longer true. It's like a spoon to a soup; whoever told you using a fork is more elegant is trapped and trying to trap you.
-- Arno Gruen, "The Betrayal of the Self"
That people get depressed or sick in other ways isn't terribly surprising. Look at the world we're making for ourselves and others to live in. It's like toddlers getting sick when crawling on a floor so dirty you can hardly see the floor, and if our first and only reaction is to ask why would the toddler get sick and what kind of protective clothing could they wear, because we're unwilling to face those shitting on the floor, it does not take a scientist to see what's going on. Putting your head over a microscope like an ostrich is what's required to not see it.
Yes, there are actual intricate mechanisms. Just like there are for getting infected in an environment full of pathogens. I'm not even saying they are not interesting or worth studying and quantifying and whatnot. Microscopes are useful, for some things essential. But sometimes the lame, boring answer, like "the world is still too unjust, too many children get abused or neglected in so many ways, often enough because their parents get trampled on, too", is the correct one, that is, it's the correct first part, it requires then acting on that. Until that sentence is no longer true. It's like a spoon to a soup; whoever told you using a fork is more elegant is trapped and trying to trap you.