The problem is that the flames are real and unavoidable, while the metaphorical flames of those commiting suicide could be some BS easily overcome and forgotten later, like the bad grades in TFA (a lot of the people commiting suicide do it starting with similar BS reasons, not because they are "medically depressed").
Besides, Wallace wouldn't be the best advisor on the matter.
I'm someone who does not appear to be biologically predisposed to depression. I have attempted suicide (at age 17), I have been hospitalized for being suicidal (in my twenties) and I do still sometimes become suddenly suicidal.
I have a medical condition that sometimes suddenly and dramatically negatively impacts my brain chemistry. I also have a great many very serious problems that are hard to overcome. They aren't "easily overcome BS."
For some people, the metaphorical flames are a very serious matter. Not everyone has a cushy life where a bad grade is their biggest fear.
We shouldn't think that having a cushy life makes anything less real. By some people's standards, DFW's life was pretty cushy, but his suffering sounds real to me.
Do you think that people who are not clinically depressed (or suffering similar symptoms as part of another diagnosable illness; e.g. hypothyroidism, hypogonadism, inborn errors of metabolism, (pre)diabetes, sleep disorders, Parkinson's disease, dementia) compose a substantial portion of people who experience suicidality? If so, can you identify any empirical evidence supporting that belief?
>Do you think that people who are not clinically depressed (or suffering similar symptoms as part of another diagnosable illness; e.g. hypothyroidism, hypogonadism, inborn errors of metabolism, (pre)diabetes, sleep disorders, Parkinson's disease, dementia) compose a substantial portion of people who experience suicidality?
Yes.
>If so, can you identify any empirical evidence supporting that belief?
It's common knowledge to mankind for millenia that most suicides are connected to real-world stressful situations and that there exist people that attempted them that were not suicidal before (and neither after they were resolved).
If you want the scientific version of this, it's called "situational depression", is commonly (1 in 5 sufferers or so) connected with suicidal attempts or obsession, and is described thusly:
An adjustment disorder (AD) (sometimes called exogenous, reactive, or situational depression) occurs when an individual is unable to adjust to or cope with a particular stressor, like a major life event. (...) Unlike major depression the disorder is caused by an outside stressor and generally resolves once the individual is able to adapt to the situation. (...)
That said, unlike most people in here, I'm with the anti-psychiatry school of people like R.D. Laing etc, and blame even "major depression" to irrational and ineffective ways of living and external conditions. I believe that's responsible for far more cases that are casually nowadays ascribed to chemical inbalances and such (mixing correlation and causation). In the same manner, I find that most kids don't need ADD drugs but it's mostly a nice racket to prescribe them.
Note that this doesn't make me unsympathetic to major depression victims (that I believe are not chemically imbalanced). If anything it's the opposite: not only they suffer from sensitivity to external issues and living conditions that are concrete and extremely difficult to avoid (short of changing the whole of society or their whole surroundings and life path), but they're also drugged and numbed to make them blend in and accept them.
I guess it's only fair that I reveal my bias here: I am deeply skeptical of people who claim to have a philosophical or political "answer" to "mental illness". In my experience, most such people seem to be utterly unfamiliar with the effects of unusual physiological states on the mind, and ultimately find their inspirations in the more flowery and idealistic schools of philosophy rather than in the scientific crucible of rationality and empiricism (neither is sufficient on its own: the two must be joined to make any sense of the world; this is, at any rate, my reading of Kant and his critics).
All that said, I'm a little confused by your invocation of "R.D. Laing etc". Usually, the name I see paired with R.D. Laing is Thomas Szasz, and I am far more receptive to the former than the latter. As far as I understand it, they had some pretty deep disagreements. Perhaps Foucault is closer to Laing than to Szasz, and you meant something closer to Foucault's formulation of mental illness, but I am less familiar with his ideas. I admit a certain reluctance to risk exposing myself to yet another flavor of pontification uninformed by experience (there are so many to choose from, and it seems that they uniformly exhaust my patience; I can only spare so much effort entertaining "learned" people who dismiss my lived experience as utter delusion).
As it happens, I was prescribed an ADHD drug by the same psychiatrist who ultimately urged me to pursue the physiological diagnosis whose treatment I actually found helpful. I found that the drug was only modestly helpful at best, and he was quite receptive to my assessment that I should discontinue it. I actually still have almost a month's supply in my cupboard, have felt no temptation to (ab)use it, and am not sure whether I should turn it in to the DEA (it being Schedule II, which is supposedly accounted with some precision) or quietly dispose of it in the bags of my paper shredder.
Foucault too, and the whole idea of mental illness as a societal construction (besides the verifiably clinical cases).
I don't see modern western medicine as a hard science like Math or Physics. It's the same "science" that touted lobotomy, electro-shock therapy (including for "gayness"), considered blacks inferior, overprescribed ADHD drugs, etc.
The problem with medicine, compared to physics, chemistry, etc, it's that its a huge business, the biggest on the planet so there's a huge monetary motivation for selling snake oil, and its procedures and practice were never formalized in a definite way nor are it's results as definite and verifiable as in physics, EE, etc, so it's also prone to fashion and fads.
Peer review by itself doesn't mean much if anything. Liberal arts journals (the kind Sokal published in) are also peer reviewed.
Listen. To anyone reading this thread, and similar threads in the past and future. The discussion may be amusing to you, or perplexing, or frustrating. It may even be pulling you down.
If you feel like you're going to harm yourself, call 911 right away, or whatever your local emergency number is.
If you are having issues, get help. Ignore all this talk. Maybe you're depressed. Maybe you just think you're an asshole, because it's hard for people to be around you and hard for you to be around people. That's not natural, we're social animals. It's not "wrong," it's a symptom.
Don't second guess yourself, don't overthink it, don't try to tough your way through, get help right away. If you have access to a doctor that's probably the easiest way to start. The doctor may treat you himself, or he may recommend some other treatment. The point of the initial visit is evaluation. They're trained to do this.
If you don't have easy access to a doctor or other professional, don't give up. If you're working then your employer may have an Employee Assistance Program. They're free, and you can get a few initial visits with an appropriate professional. EAP usually offers lots of unrelated services, including legal advice, so don't hesitate to ask HR or whoever for the brochure or information, they won't know why you want it.
You may have to go through your county's assistance resources, and that's potentially frustrating, but do it and be persistent. Get a friend or relative to help you navigate.
Me: My car won't start. I need to get rid of it.
Mechanic: Actually all we need to do is replace this solenoid. You should probably change the oil a little more often too. The car is actually pretty good.
Me: Oh, good. I'm glad I asked a professional. I kind of like this car, and I'd like to keep it.
>But statements like this are one of the reasons people are reluctant to get help. My problem is bullshit. I'm weak. What will people think? Regardless of whether the "reasons" or problems are real (to you) or imagined bullshit, people do kill themselves over it.
How does that change what I wrote? Is it the "to you" qualifier? As if things can't be objectively BS as reasons to commit suicide?
People kill themselves over all kinds of BS and not just by suicide. This includes nationalism, religion, and even as idiotic things as "dares".
In fact Tim in the article even admits about his own situation being BS. And it didn't take some huge experience to make him see that, or treatment, or medication: just a phone call from his mother.
Empathy is understanding that they feel really bad -- it doesn't mean justyfing the causes of that feeling too.
If you want to help people you need to make them see the BS-ness of those things (e.g. a failing grade), not overdramatize them as legitimate life-ending situations for them out of misguided empathy.
"As if things can't be objectively BS as reasons to commit suicide?"
You can't rationalize suicide attempts away. Just don't. Showing you care is good. Kindness is good. Any attempt at hard love or such is a recipe for disaster.
Because there is a very good chance you can't tell whether a person is clinically depressed or not. It is very common that they mask this during work etc. and when they get home they just crumble. There are three ways out of this: the person gets better by themselves, they kill themselves or they get medical attention and get better.
It is good to suggest medical attention. It is very bad to suggest anything that like that their feelings are due to bullshit reasons because depressed people can channel this into pure self loathing. It's a medical condition because you cannot rationalize it away.
Do. Not. Tell. Them. That they are making bullshit reasons. That will be a pretty strong disincentive to go to seek medical attention. It will probably make themselves even worse off.
Objectively "BS"? What does that even mean? You need to get a grip and stop your anger towards people who are feeling terrible. If you don't recognize the kind of imagery (the manly-man imagery) that is typically associated with your choice of words, please take a moment to reflect on it. You cannot say "I empathize with you. By the way your reasons for feeling this way are total BS" in the same breath and have any semblance of actual empathy. You feel yourself a clever wordsmith, I'm afraid, who packs a gun called "tough love".
It means that as far as things to commit suicide for go, a failing grade in some assignment or a rejection in high school, are not very important in the grand scheme of life. If someone attempts suicide over the loss of his family, it's more understandable than attempting suicide because you were rejected for The Voice.
>You need to get a grip and stop your anger towards people who are feeling terrible.
I'm not sure what you are projecting here. Qualifying something is not anger, and I'm not talking to people "who are feeling terrible", I'm talking to people on a HN thread. This is a discussion. It's not very polite to assume things and feelings for the other end.
>You cannot say "I empathize with you. By the way your reasons for feeling this way are total BS" in the same breath and have any semblance of actual empathy.
Yeah, because lots of people never took their friends aside (or vice versa) to try and help them overcome a dark patch, including suicidal thoughts and depression, by putting things in perspectove for them. So their version of empathy is "Don't bother me, go see a doctor and take your meds".
This conversation is like it's taking place in a bizarro alternative universe, when all suicide is caused by tangible chemically induced depression (which is the only form of depression in that universe too), and people never overdramatize their circumstances.
This might be an 21st century American thing, were individuals must absolutely remove any societal and personal causes for their situation. In these parts of Europe we find it OK for friends to help us see clearly what's trivial and what's not, and we had similar philosophies down to the time of Epicurus.
Whether or not somebodies sense of depression is triggered by something "trivial" or "stupid", it is likely genuinely causing them distress. Personally I wouldn't pull my friend aside and say, "Hey man you seem down, but the fact that you just broke up with your girlfriend is a total BS reason to be upset". Perhaps we are only differing in the way we like to describe the situation, but your language comes across as being unnecessarily "macho".
> It means that as far as things to commit suicide for go, a failing grade in some assignment or a rejection in high school, are not very important in the grand scheme of life.
Of course it's not that important. But that's not why they're killing themselves. That's just one more thing to push them over the edge. Behind it is a fundamental problem, and it's that problem that's making them vulnerable to something that seems trivial.
You are framing the discussion in a certain way, and then attacking other people for things they haven't said, and doing so aggressively and from a position of staggering ignorance. The fact you cite Laing is telling - he's almost totally discredited now.
1) when you find someone who is actively planning a suicide you have a choice. Keep them alive until they get to a professional, or treat them yourself. You wouldn't (I assume) stick a pen through the eye of someone having a heart attack, but that's the rough equivalent of what you're recommending people do to suicidal people.
2) treatment for suicidality has two components. i) keep them alive until meds and therapy can take effect. ii) give them meds and therapy. Suicide prevention is wider. If you're talking about suicide prevention as a public health measure you should probably state that. If you don't know the words to use to specify what you're talking about that should be a clue that perhaps you don't know what you're fucking talking about and should perhaps be a bit less arrogant.
3) as part of keeping someone alive until they can get help: there are things that we know mostly work, and things that we know mostly don't work. "Low grades? That's a bullshit reason to die! They're not that low; you can retake them; I got worse grades and I love my awesome job so your career path could be like that!" is something that we know mostly does not work. We know because we talk to survivors of suicide. Since there are 112 Americans per day who die by suicide we have plenty of people to talk to. If telling people their opinions was bullshit did anything to change their minds you and other people wouldn't be having this discussion - you'd have changed their mind or they'd have changed yours.
4) reactive depression is still depression. It's still an illness. The cure for reactive depression is to change the thing causing the reaction, but also provide evidence based techniques to build resiliance.
5) if just telling people they were wrong worked we wouldn't have had such a high deathrate from anorexia. About 1 in 5 people with this anxiety disorder die from it (this number is going down)
> be an 21st century American thing, were individuals must absolutely remove any societal and personal causes for their situation. In these parts of Europe we find it OK for friends to help us see clearly what's trivial and what's not, and we had similar philosophies down to the time of Epicurus.
There are reasons for the high death rate to suicide in most (but not all!) parts of the US, and this probably is not one of them. Decreased access to treatment; poor quality treatment; judgemental and stigmatizing views; increased use of criminal justice instead of mental health treatment; easy access to means and methods; etc etc.
> you need to make them see the BS-ness of those things
No, I don't need to make anyone see anything. And if they're anywhere near suicide, they don't need that message from me, they need professional help. Things are not rational, by definition, and they're dangerous. Don't fuck around with this, it's not a rationality petri dish or a debate.
I think you misapprehend the situation. Based on my experience with suicidality, the "BS" isn't what actually prompts the suicidal thoughts. Rather, it's post-hoc rationalization for the irrational feeling of having no future worth experiencing. In a broader sense, this is something that people do all the time: we experience an emotion, then try to explain it after-the-fact. Our brains are incredibly adept at inventing "reasons" for experiences and sensations that ultimately stem from bizarre defects of biology and other caprices of circumstance. The mythologies associated with sleep paralysis (the hag, incubi/succubi, alien abduction) are perhaps the most vivid examples of this phenomenon.
Besides, Wallace wouldn't be the best advisor on the matter.