Re: Define mental illness?

> > Isn't Mental Illness just a way to say "Evolution"? Those who can not handle
>
> No.  It's supposed to refer to a distinct class of behaviors (including
> "mental life" as a behavior) that is actually pathological in effect.
> This is in part to distinguish it from otherwise non-pathological
> eccentricity.

I feel obligated to mention again that mental illness and psychosis are not
the same -- this term does not imply deviant or un-sane behavior, but
neurological problems in general which interfere with actual thought processes
(as opposed to, say, a motory problem which causes muscle twitches or awkward
movements), quite generally.  There are things which may go wrong with one's
mental apparatus which impair or distort reason, but saying that all mental
problems are such is like saying that any computer problem causes a system
crash -- it's an extremely oversimplified viewpoint.  A physiological corollary
of Murphy's Law might go thus: if anything can possibly go wrong with the
body or brain in any way, it will, in at least some individuals.  A certain
bundle of neurons is damaged, and this causes a specific problem.  Gland X
starts overproducing or underproducing enzyme Y and this causes another kind
of problem, etc. etc.  The physiology of the brain is just as likely to get
out of whack as any other part of the body, though the consequences are often
a lot more uncomfortable.  Gland X does not care what the afflicted individual
thinks or does, whether the individual is having a good day or a bad, whether
his wife has just died or he's just won the lottery and such external
circumstances do not affect an actual psysiological illness such as, say,
"depression" in one sense of the word.  They have nothing to do with life
problems or anything external at all.  Those who pride themselves on never
having been mentally ill might as well pride themselves on never having never
had the measles -- it's a ridiculous thing to attach personal importance to
as it has nothing to do with one's actual person, but rather with one's
physiology.  At the other end, most people I've come across who have claimed
to have been treated for "depression" and such have not actually been ill
(it does appear to be somewhat of a fad to have been "depressed", though I
don't know why), which is not to invalidate whatever negative experiences they
may have been through, but the problem had to do with their life or their
personality, not with their actual brain matter -- it's a different sort of
problem.  It is perfectly possible to be awake, reasonable and optimisic in
a depression as long as it is not too severe (staying awake, reasonable and
optimistic in the grips of a serious bodily illness is similarly difficult);
it is -- NOT -- the same thing as sadness.  Feels like hell, but that can be
dealt with ;-)  To get to the main point:

The Main Point:
Mental illness is a bodily condition, not a personality problem.  It may
entail "insanity" but then again may not, depending on the type of neurological
malfunction.  It cannot be willed away nor is it the fault of its victim
(though many mentally ill people seem to think their condition gives them the
right to behave any way they like or to feel sorry for themselves -- this is
distinct from the actual physiological aspect of the illness).  It's brain
stuff.  There should probably be a wider variety of English words to
distinguish between this and what most people confuse with it, between actual
illnesses and the ordinary states of mind which they are often named after.
But that's natural language for you -- good thing there are also better and
less problematic languages out there, though it's a shame more people don't
use them ;)

JJS