I think that some things exist which are almost certainly wholly or partially constructed, some which are almost certainly not, and some the status of which one cannot currently determine with any certainty.
In the first category lie ideological concepts and concepts people impose on reality to explain it - patriotism, nations, race, systems of temporal and spatial measurement, mathematics, etc. These may be grounded in reality, but they themselves are totally apart from it; the idea of nations may stem from humans' primitive urges to mark out territory, but the idea itself does not exist anywhere except in constructed ideological space - a 'nation' is not a physical thing, or an urge, even if it exists because of one.
In the second is a large part of the external world. While of course fallibility, as always, is an undeniable possibility, discarding that I believe one can be relatively certain that the world exists. One does not really have any reason to doubt its existence. Most people think, at least, that they can tell the difference between dreams and reality, and while they possess no method of proving that they are not asleep, they have no particular reason to think they are. Furthermore, other people seem to exist as well. One cannot accurately predict their actions, read their thoughts, or cause them to comply with one's wishes if they do not want to. Certainly, the wills and minds of others could actually be hidden parts of one's own psyche, subconscious parts, but this seems far-fetched, and once more, there is no especial reason to believe it is so - while there is reason to believe it is not (one's experience of the world).
The last category contains the actual thing that is (or is not, if it does not exist) time, some deities, and some sensory perceptions. As I still have no idea what time actually is, I do not know if it exists or not, is constructed or not. Certain deities (and imaginary objects or concepts) have unknowability included in their definitions - this sets them apart from material objects, or imaginary objects. While I can say with a certain level of confidence that the material chair upon which I am sitting exists (since the definition of a material chairs says that if I am sitting on it I should be able to feel it, see it, etc.) and that there is no material chair on my head (because, by the same definition, I should be able to experience it with my senses if it does), I cannot say whether a transcendent, immaterial chair, undetectable by any means known to humanity, is on my head. I have no particular reason to believe that it is - I also have no particular reason to believe that it is not. Yes, I have never encountered such a chair before to my knowledge, nor anything like it, but of course I would not have known if I did because it would have been undetectable!
I cannot think of anything which does not fit into one of the above three categories. If anyone else can, please feel free (more than free - invited!) to comment.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Not Just Useless
In response to Tom Leidenfrost's post "Refusing One's Nature with Pharmaceuticals?" (12/14/2012):
While I believe that cases exist wherein using medication is the best option for a person, I agree that in many situations medication is both unnecessary and harmful.
Extreme mental abnormalities, such as severe hallucinatory schizophrenia or debilitating OCD, may so impair an individual's ability to perceive and interact with the world that they cannot function at all independently without the aid of pharmaceutical substances. In cases such as these - wherein abnormalities are so extreme they may genuinely be called disorders or illnessess, as they cause just as much inconvenience and difficulty as physical illnesses - I think that taking medication is perfectly alright, or even advisable.
Other mental abnormalities, however, such as ADHD, and the now-defunct asperger syndrome, do not usually deprive individuals entirely of their autonomy. They may make life more difficult to navigate, but they do not demand treatment in the same way that more extreme abnormalities do. I do not think that most people with these abnormalities require medication, and might in fact benefit greatly from avoiding it. As well as being unnecessary, medication can have notable harmful effects. Many medications do have physical risks attached to them, but in addition, some may have mental risks which are not stated 'on the bottle,' so to speak.
A friend of mine is a karate instructor for young children. On more than one occasion she has told me stories about a few of her students who were diagnosed with ADHD and began, due to their parents' decisions, taking medication for it. Prior to taking medication these students were quite hyperactive and did not pay attention in class - they had fun, but did not really learn anything. After beginning medication, they were calm and somewhat detached. Sometimes they seemed almost asleep on their feet. They still did not learn anything, and now they did not have fun either.
Obviously, medication does not have this sort of dramatic effect in every case. However, especially when children take it because of their parents' decisions rather than their own, I think it is ethically problematic. Instead of medicating children to make them cooperative, why don't schools implement longer research periods and less class hours? Why don't parents pay attention to their children at home, instead of giving them a pill when they make noise and trouble to gain attention? The most highly lauded school systems in the world all have considerably shorter class hours and longer research times than American schools; not only do these countries have a more educated populace, they also have a much lower ADHD rate. I think that over-medication is definitely a problem, and that there are many alternatives to pharmaceuticals which are under-used and under-known, especially in America.
While I believe that cases exist wherein using medication is the best option for a person, I agree that in many situations medication is both unnecessary and harmful.
Extreme mental abnormalities, such as severe hallucinatory schizophrenia or debilitating OCD, may so impair an individual's ability to perceive and interact with the world that they cannot function at all independently without the aid of pharmaceutical substances. In cases such as these - wherein abnormalities are so extreme they may genuinely be called disorders or illnessess, as they cause just as much inconvenience and difficulty as physical illnesses - I think that taking medication is perfectly alright, or even advisable.
Other mental abnormalities, however, such as ADHD, and the now-defunct asperger syndrome, do not usually deprive individuals entirely of their autonomy. They may make life more difficult to navigate, but they do not demand treatment in the same way that more extreme abnormalities do. I do not think that most people with these abnormalities require medication, and might in fact benefit greatly from avoiding it. As well as being unnecessary, medication can have notable harmful effects. Many medications do have physical risks attached to them, but in addition, some may have mental risks which are not stated 'on the bottle,' so to speak.
A friend of mine is a karate instructor for young children. On more than one occasion she has told me stories about a few of her students who were diagnosed with ADHD and began, due to their parents' decisions, taking medication for it. Prior to taking medication these students were quite hyperactive and did not pay attention in class - they had fun, but did not really learn anything. After beginning medication, they were calm and somewhat detached. Sometimes they seemed almost asleep on their feet. They still did not learn anything, and now they did not have fun either.
Obviously, medication does not have this sort of dramatic effect in every case. However, especially when children take it because of their parents' decisions rather than their own, I think it is ethically problematic. Instead of medicating children to make them cooperative, why don't schools implement longer research periods and less class hours? Why don't parents pay attention to their children at home, instead of giving them a pill when they make noise and trouble to gain attention? The most highly lauded school systems in the world all have considerably shorter class hours and longer research times than American schools; not only do these countries have a more educated populace, they also have a much lower ADHD rate. I think that over-medication is definitely a problem, and that there are many alternatives to pharmaceuticals which are under-used and under-known, especially in America.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)