Michael Yates
Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> 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