Doug Henwood wrote:
> Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> >I.e., it is dogmatically assumed that everyone *must* have a theory
> >of psychology, as though no one could possibly not have such a
> >theory.
>
> I don't recall your answering my question - how you'd explain the
> fact that you're clinically depressed.
O.K. I really did intend not to go over the limit today. I think I did respond, but I can't locate the original post, so here goes. The earlier post also rejected the question, but I don't remember how I formulated the rejection, and this may differ.
I can give a partial *description* of all cases of clinical depression --
but not an explanation, if one demands (as I do) a fairly rigorous sense of explanation. (All cases involve disruption in the movement of serotonin -- but to say that was the cause would (a) go beyond current neurological knowledge, for we probably don't even have nearly a complete neurological description, and (b) merely name part of what needed to be explained rather than explain anything.) Beyond that, anything physiological or behavioral or social that we might say about clinical depression would apply to *only* some proportion of all cases.
So in effect the demand for an explanation is a false demand. If you don't believe in God, you'll just have to live with it, as Eliot said referring to Arnold. There are no substitutes. The quest for some general explanation of individual behavior is futile, and a terrible (I would say destructive) deflection from the pursuit of attainable knowledge. My therapist tells me that there is always a sprinkling of patients who want to know "why." Her first response is to try to dissuade them from that desire. Those who persist are usually content with a label rather than an explanation, which is fortunate, because that is all that can be offered.
Carrol