I disagree: I think diseases exist. I also think there is something else besides natural reality. I also think that people have always being abused by exaggerations about their physical conditions. This abuse has been mostly political. I also believe that most people cannot even begin to imagine that political power invents diseases all …
I disagree: I think diseases exist. I also think there is something else besides natural reality. I also think that people have always being abused by exaggerations about their physical conditions. This abuse has been mostly political. I also believe that most people cannot even begin to imagine that political power invents diseases all the time and haunts people with lies. Quackery is the province of Power, and individual quacks are merely poachers.
I also dispute the implicit slight to philosophy. In philosophy, you can get easily fooled with wrong notions like the non-existence of reality. But it is also philosophical thought the one who can dispel those errors. So philosophy is both a poison and a cure. And medical philosophy is probably mostly wrong, about everything, because doctors are in general not clear-thinkers and they are more interested in being right than in learning truth, and the thinkers who enter the field of "medical philosophy" have not seen wounds, disease, pain, suffering, deformities or death, much less normal physiology. And yet, medical philosophy is a field that can be useful in order to contribute to the multidisciplinary effort of ending the many errors of medical practice. The main problem of medical philosophy ***right now*** is that this field completely ignores economic thought. By questioning the existence of 'disease' you are engaging in medical philosophy, with the purpose of helping out.
In general, I think the approach of Dr. Cowan can be very beneficial to those who sell service as health practitioners, and those who seek to buy therapies, and that approach implies a change in language and vision of any disease process. He does not say 'diseases' don't exist in physical reality, but that each patient has a story, and the practitioner has to listen to that story to help the patient write the end. So, for example, if a man has an accident and loses his legs, and he 'has' depression and the wounds hurt even years after the accident, and pain medication does not help, maybe the patient needs a different perspective on why he has pain, rather than more surgery (which he may not be able to afford) or experimental treatments or the Kanadian National-Socialist approach to 'compassion'. Maybe, I speculate, the labor of most doctors is to help people write their own script.
And maybe it would be a good idea for doctors in general to stop scaring to death their patients, for the fun and profit of communist organizations, like insurance companies and banks. At the very least, if they want to continue prostituting themselves to power, they should ask for more money.
There is an illness. An illness is not a disease. What man suffers is different than what disease a patient gets diagnosed with by a physician some place some time for some purpose.
The meaning of a word depends on the context of a speaker, situation, and some purpose of this word. In any formal knowledge, such as understanding how medicine works, words an illness and disease are not synonyms. They are formal concepts that later can be analyzed and ordered to be increasingly programmed as data. Without such understanding how philosophy is the foundation of some kind of medical knowledge and practice, it is impossible to understand the use of statistics and how to use or avoid using medicine. You simply can’t know how to use it without understanding the meaning of words in context.
But you are confounding things here. In your first message to me you don't explain that you use the word 'disease' in a technical sense, but you seem to be using it as an everyday term.
Which sounds a lot like a tactic of rhetoric.
You and I agree that there is major fraud in medicine, and it's not a recent development. But I say that if a person actually has an illness or disease (as commonly understood) it's morally wrong to tell him that he doesn't. And if a person does not have an illness or disease, it's also morally wrong (perhaps even worse) to tell him that he does have it. That seems to be the the first step of this method of slavery.
And in the world we live in now, if a person has a real disease, and you have a cure, it may be impossible or even illegal for you to inform that hypothetical person.
Which is even worse than fraud. Censorship has killed more people than any virus.
Any person who believes that there is such thing as "homicide by failing to give assistance" should also be against any form of medical censorship for a comparable reason, including the subtle bludgeon of deplatforming and debanking.
Statistics and uncertainty in the realm of science deal with disease. Not an illness. What is moral and immoral has nothing to do with “having a disease” that he or she does not know he or she “has”.
You speak as a person with a very particular understanding of self as a body. It is an average statistical body that can “have a body” that “has a disease”. This is as hardcore as philosophy gets. Not everyone “has a body” or “has a disease”.
Telling a person a lie about his disease, with the result of hurting him is not immoral?
I don't understand what you are saying.
--
I think you are not using clear definitions, but you think you are.
I think illness and disease are the same. These words refer to some harm happening in the body. The appearance of the harm does not tell much about its origin.
I think a spiritual pain, like sin, or a mental pain, can cause actual harm in the body.
I don't know the mechanism, and I loathe the word mechanism to talk about this.
The people who argue that the body does not exist are at pain to describe this phenomenon.
A the people who argue that diseases (in the commonly understood meaning) are not real have even more difficulties in explaining anything that happens.
But the so called 'psychosomatic' disease is not the same as making up a disease or acting ill or anything like that.
And I think that most diagnoses and definitions are bogus, and don't help anyone. To the contrary, people are often hurt when they get a diagnosis. That's an indication of an immoral use of science, either by accident or purposely.
Again, when you conflate illness and disease, then assert that both mean that they “cause harm”, you declare a philosophical framework that is uniquely secular, Western, mechanical. When you divide the totality of a person into body, spirit, and “mental”, you are already far gone in a very particular philosophical understanding of the totality of reality — fractured, reductionist.
Words and metaphors that we use as well as particular way of seeing, ordering, and classifying typically fit into some worldview for some particular purpose. If you change words and metaphors, you essentially change the conditions of a problem you are trying to solve.
You haven't defined the terms. What is the technical definition of disease and illness that you use? Please explain how are they different.
About mind-body dualism. There are two escape paths out of that: eliminative physicalism, which sucks, and absolute spiritiualism (I refuse to call it immaterialism, a horrible term for it) which denies the existence of bodies, which sucks at least as much as the former.
Maybe there is a third way out of the mind-body dualism?
--
Let me ask: Do you think the body exists? Do you think that death of the body is real? If so, do you think that there are chemical substances that can harm the body?
Let's call "toxemia" the theory that certain chemical substances natural or synthetic, can cause harm to the body, as the blood carries and distributes chemicals through all the body. Do you think that toxemia can explain all illnesses and all diseases, in the common use of those terms which is purportedly different from your technical use?
I think not. Toxemia probably explains many things better than germ theory of disease. Sadly, most doctors are way behind on that. Perhaps learning to neutralize and remove toxins is the way to cure many real diseases, and to prevent many of the so called degenerative diseases. But, in my unlearned opinion, there are other causes of disease, one of them fear.
All Western countries live enslaved by the products of the industry of fear. Many diseases are not even caused by toxins, but by the machinations of political power. For example, children sometimes have fever and vomits but there is no sign of food poisoning, or any intoxication. It's possible that they are echoing the fear their parents suffer, from whatever source. Then the children are given drugs to suppress the symptoms, an action that guarantees that the parents will not realize they have to confront their fear, for that's also part of the health of their children. Thus, fear becomes a chronic condition that most people take to be natural, and all culture goes to hell. Thus, adults are lost and children are wide open to be taken in the communist cult.
It's not normal to have so many parents suffering from psychological strain.
(note: I subscribe to the idea that the word strain is better than stress to explain, by way of analogy, the effects of cognition on the health of the body. In Physics, stress is a cause of strain deformation. Thus, when we talk about the consequence of the effects of terror on the body, the expression strain should be used instead of stress, lest we confuse cause and effect.)
In the West an understanding of self as a body dictates the kinds of questions you ask about the “causes” of “disease”. If we begin with “suffering man”… there is no compelling reason to think that suffering is a disease that needs to be treated or cured. The interpretation of the meaning of suffering is varied. When we explore the “causes”, it becomes clear that the choice of the cause rests on something else what we call “worldview” as well was what we are trying to do. Our methods are subordinated to something else.
If by 'existing as a philosophical concept" you mean it does not exist in reality, because philosophical concepts in general do not match to anything in reality, then you are wrong. I can give you a disease easily: drink too much beer. Your head will hurt. I warantee it will happen. Same effect with ingesting too much edculcorants or sweeteners. One argument goes that these substances sequester water and the resulting dehydration somehow produces pain. But, in any case, that pain is a disease, literally.
It will resolve on its own very fast. Maybe it will take a few hours. But probably you will survive. And you may learn to not drink too much beer.
But there is a metaphorical use of disease, which is thrown at people who have exactly zero pain. That should be a crime, in my opinion. You just don't tell a person 'you have a disease X and you will have pain X' or any other future symptom. Jinxing people is a bad action.
On the other hand, when people have discomfort, irritation, or some kind of unsual stuff going on on some part of the visible parts of their body, maybe it would be best to study if some kind of poison has harmed them, and inform them that their body is trying to get rid of the poison, and help them detoxify, a teaching that may include a change in habits and practices. But people wish for easy cures, like an antibiotic, which may really harm them internally, in some cases. And people are not informed of the risk and benefit balance.
In short, doctors act more as drug-pushers to willing customers, than as teachers of health or healing.
Perhaps a more time-consuming cure can help people learn, and time-saving cures enable people to continue hurting themselves. Isn't that philosophical?
What you described is some self inflicted suffering that is not a disease. In medicine, a disease is something that a physician diagnoses based on some set of agreed upon parameters (symptoms, numbers, etc) in some school of medicine for the purpose of medical treatment. A random drunk in pain does not “have” any “diseases” until he encounters a medical practitioner who transforms a drunk into a patient by the actions of assessment and diagnosing.
You and I agree that medical diagnoses are evil communist bullshit from hell, like public schooling and the income tax, all meant to confuse reason and make as many people as possible out of touch with virtue.
But you claim that diagnosis equals disease. I say they don't. A disease is real, a diagnosis is mere propaganda, or a hex, if you will.
The real reason why you confuse diagnosis and disease is one of these two: a) you are genuinely confused about the difference of the two terms, or b) you are taking too far a rhetorical technique to attract attention to your argument.
If a, I beg you consider the possibility that a disease is different from the errors of the doctors.
If b, you have to hone your rhetorical skills, and learn when to stop, lest you commit the fallacy of proving too much.
And let me repeat, sadly we see a lot of people living under the delusion that they have a disease, when they don't. They become enamored of their condition. That's an error they are making, and they may actually receive a lot of damage if they continue the farce. But we also have to realize that this type of malingerers are not autonomous, but marionettes in the hands of very evil people who hate normal human life. It is near impossible to help these people rebel against the fantasy that enslaves them by telling them that diseases and diagnoses are not real. This talk of the non-reality of disease is only useful with people with a tendency to rationalism, everyone else are impervious to it. And the people who want to be slaves are not rationalists, and the masters aren't either. They're thinking exists in a very far away province from rationalism.
When Thomas Szasz argued that people should bite the hand that feeds them when that hand is also poisoning them, he was talking about the difficulties in explaining reality to people who hate reality. I doubt that he had any rational hope in convincing any slave or master to stop their immoral actions. Rather, his rational hope was to make clear to other rationalists that it is best to be warned that these fantasies are harmful and persistent, and the strategy to defend oneself from these people is complex and requires some working knowledge of the reality of human moral slavery, how it starts and how it develops over time. But many rationalists are simply to naive and prefer to imagine that there is no such thing as evil. So they disregard the wise observations and advice of a true expert, and they will also end up taking pills, and repenting from doing that.
I disagree: I think diseases exist. I also think there is something else besides natural reality. I also think that people have always being abused by exaggerations about their physical conditions. This abuse has been mostly political. I also believe that most people cannot even begin to imagine that political power invents diseases all the time and haunts people with lies. Quackery is the province of Power, and individual quacks are merely poachers.
I also dispute the implicit slight to philosophy. In philosophy, you can get easily fooled with wrong notions like the non-existence of reality. But it is also philosophical thought the one who can dispel those errors. So philosophy is both a poison and a cure. And medical philosophy is probably mostly wrong, about everything, because doctors are in general not clear-thinkers and they are more interested in being right than in learning truth, and the thinkers who enter the field of "medical philosophy" have not seen wounds, disease, pain, suffering, deformities or death, much less normal physiology. And yet, medical philosophy is a field that can be useful in order to contribute to the multidisciplinary effort of ending the many errors of medical practice. The main problem of medical philosophy ***right now*** is that this field completely ignores economic thought. By questioning the existence of 'disease' you are engaging in medical philosophy, with the purpose of helping out.
In general, I think the approach of Dr. Cowan can be very beneficial to those who sell service as health practitioners, and those who seek to buy therapies, and that approach implies a change in language and vision of any disease process. He does not say 'diseases' don't exist in physical reality, but that each patient has a story, and the practitioner has to listen to that story to help the patient write the end. So, for example, if a man has an accident and loses his legs, and he 'has' depression and the wounds hurt even years after the accident, and pain medication does not help, maybe the patient needs a different perspective on why he has pain, rather than more surgery (which he may not be able to afford) or experimental treatments or the Kanadian National-Socialist approach to 'compassion'. Maybe, I speculate, the labor of most doctors is to help people write their own script.
And maybe it would be a good idea for doctors in general to stop scaring to death their patients, for the fun and profit of communist organizations, like insurance companies and banks. At the very least, if they want to continue prostituting themselves to power, they should ask for more money.
There is an illness. An illness is not a disease. What man suffers is different than what disease a patient gets diagnosed with by a physician some place some time for some purpose.
Why do you think that the term 'illness' is not a synonym of the term 'disease'?
The meaning of a word depends on the context of a speaker, situation, and some purpose of this word. In any formal knowledge, such as understanding how medicine works, words an illness and disease are not synonyms. They are formal concepts that later can be analyzed and ordered to be increasingly programmed as data. Without such understanding how philosophy is the foundation of some kind of medical knowledge and practice, it is impossible to understand the use of statistics and how to use or avoid using medicine. You simply can’t know how to use it without understanding the meaning of words in context.
But you are confounding things here. In your first message to me you don't explain that you use the word 'disease' in a technical sense, but you seem to be using it as an everyday term.
Which sounds a lot like a tactic of rhetoric.
You and I agree that there is major fraud in medicine, and it's not a recent development. But I say that if a person actually has an illness or disease (as commonly understood) it's morally wrong to tell him that he doesn't. And if a person does not have an illness or disease, it's also morally wrong (perhaps even worse) to tell him that he does have it. That seems to be the the first step of this method of slavery.
And in the world we live in now, if a person has a real disease, and you have a cure, it may be impossible or even illegal for you to inform that hypothetical person.
Which is even worse than fraud. Censorship has killed more people than any virus.
Any person who believes that there is such thing as "homicide by failing to give assistance" should also be against any form of medical censorship for a comparable reason, including the subtle bludgeon of deplatforming and debanking.
Statistics and uncertainty in the realm of science deal with disease. Not an illness. What is moral and immoral has nothing to do with “having a disease” that he or she does not know he or she “has”.
You speak as a person with a very particular understanding of self as a body. It is an average statistical body that can “have a body” that “has a disease”. This is as hardcore as philosophy gets. Not everyone “has a body” or “has a disease”.
Telling a person a lie about his disease, with the result of hurting him is not immoral?
I don't understand what you are saying.
--
I think you are not using clear definitions, but you think you are.
I think illness and disease are the same. These words refer to some harm happening in the body. The appearance of the harm does not tell much about its origin.
I think a spiritual pain, like sin, or a mental pain, can cause actual harm in the body.
I don't know the mechanism, and I loathe the word mechanism to talk about this.
The people who argue that the body does not exist are at pain to describe this phenomenon.
A the people who argue that diseases (in the commonly understood meaning) are not real have even more difficulties in explaining anything that happens.
But the so called 'psychosomatic' disease is not the same as making up a disease or acting ill or anything like that.
And I think that most diagnoses and definitions are bogus, and don't help anyone. To the contrary, people are often hurt when they get a diagnosis. That's an indication of an immoral use of science, either by accident or purposely.
Again, when you conflate illness and disease, then assert that both mean that they “cause harm”, you declare a philosophical framework that is uniquely secular, Western, mechanical. When you divide the totality of a person into body, spirit, and “mental”, you are already far gone in a very particular philosophical understanding of the totality of reality — fractured, reductionist.
Words and metaphors that we use as well as particular way of seeing, ordering, and classifying typically fit into some worldview for some particular purpose. If you change words and metaphors, you essentially change the conditions of a problem you are trying to solve.
You haven't defined the terms. What is the technical definition of disease and illness that you use? Please explain how are they different.
About mind-body dualism. There are two escape paths out of that: eliminative physicalism, which sucks, and absolute spiritiualism (I refuse to call it immaterialism, a horrible term for it) which denies the existence of bodies, which sucks at least as much as the former.
Maybe there is a third way out of the mind-body dualism?
--
Let me ask: Do you think the body exists? Do you think that death of the body is real? If so, do you think that there are chemical substances that can harm the body?
Let's call "toxemia" the theory that certain chemical substances natural or synthetic, can cause harm to the body, as the blood carries and distributes chemicals through all the body. Do you think that toxemia can explain all illnesses and all diseases, in the common use of those terms which is purportedly different from your technical use?
I think not. Toxemia probably explains many things better than germ theory of disease. Sadly, most doctors are way behind on that. Perhaps learning to neutralize and remove toxins is the way to cure many real diseases, and to prevent many of the so called degenerative diseases. But, in my unlearned opinion, there are other causes of disease, one of them fear.
All Western countries live enslaved by the products of the industry of fear. Many diseases are not even caused by toxins, but by the machinations of political power. For example, children sometimes have fever and vomits but there is no sign of food poisoning, or any intoxication. It's possible that they are echoing the fear their parents suffer, from whatever source. Then the children are given drugs to suppress the symptoms, an action that guarantees that the parents will not realize they have to confront their fear, for that's also part of the health of their children. Thus, fear becomes a chronic condition that most people take to be natural, and all culture goes to hell. Thus, adults are lost and children are wide open to be taken in the communist cult.
It's not normal to have so many parents suffering from psychological strain.
(note: I subscribe to the idea that the word strain is better than stress to explain, by way of analogy, the effects of cognition on the health of the body. In Physics, stress is a cause of strain deformation. Thus, when we talk about the consequence of the effects of terror on the body, the expression strain should be used instead of stress, lest we confuse cause and effect.)
In the West an understanding of self as a body dictates the kinds of questions you ask about the “causes” of “disease”. If we begin with “suffering man”… there is no compelling reason to think that suffering is a disease that needs to be treated or cured. The interpretation of the meaning of suffering is varied. When we explore the “causes”, it becomes clear that the choice of the cause rests on something else what we call “worldview” as well was what we are trying to do. Our methods are subordinated to something else.
I understand now: you are a Buddhist.
Sorry, I think Buddhism is bull shit, literally and figuratively.
Where you are going I cannot follow.
Thank you very much for speaking with me, even in your difficult to understand responses.
Disease “exists” as a philosophical concept. The word “disease” encoded in letters has a meaning that corresponds to something.
If by 'existing as a philosophical concept" you mean it does not exist in reality, because philosophical concepts in general do not match to anything in reality, then you are wrong. I can give you a disease easily: drink too much beer. Your head will hurt. I warantee it will happen. Same effect with ingesting too much edculcorants or sweeteners. One argument goes that these substances sequester water and the resulting dehydration somehow produces pain. But, in any case, that pain is a disease, literally.
It will resolve on its own very fast. Maybe it will take a few hours. But probably you will survive. And you may learn to not drink too much beer.
But there is a metaphorical use of disease, which is thrown at people who have exactly zero pain. That should be a crime, in my opinion. You just don't tell a person 'you have a disease X and you will have pain X' or any other future symptom. Jinxing people is a bad action.
On the other hand, when people have discomfort, irritation, or some kind of unsual stuff going on on some part of the visible parts of their body, maybe it would be best to study if some kind of poison has harmed them, and inform them that their body is trying to get rid of the poison, and help them detoxify, a teaching that may include a change in habits and practices. But people wish for easy cures, like an antibiotic, which may really harm them internally, in some cases. And people are not informed of the risk and benefit balance.
In short, doctors act more as drug-pushers to willing customers, than as teachers of health or healing.
Perhaps a more time-consuming cure can help people learn, and time-saving cures enable people to continue hurting themselves. Isn't that philosophical?
What you described is some self inflicted suffering that is not a disease. In medicine, a disease is something that a physician diagnoses based on some set of agreed upon parameters (symptoms, numbers, etc) in some school of medicine for the purpose of medical treatment. A random drunk in pain does not “have” any “diseases” until he encounters a medical practitioner who transforms a drunk into a patient by the actions of assessment and diagnosing.
We're getting somewhere here. Excellent.
You and I agree that medical diagnoses are evil communist bullshit from hell, like public schooling and the income tax, all meant to confuse reason and make as many people as possible out of touch with virtue.
But you claim that diagnosis equals disease. I say they don't. A disease is real, a diagnosis is mere propaganda, or a hex, if you will.
The real reason why you confuse diagnosis and disease is one of these two: a) you are genuinely confused about the difference of the two terms, or b) you are taking too far a rhetorical technique to attract attention to your argument.
If a, I beg you consider the possibility that a disease is different from the errors of the doctors.
If b, you have to hone your rhetorical skills, and learn when to stop, lest you commit the fallacy of proving too much.
And let me repeat, sadly we see a lot of people living under the delusion that they have a disease, when they don't. They become enamored of their condition. That's an error they are making, and they may actually receive a lot of damage if they continue the farce. But we also have to realize that this type of malingerers are not autonomous, but marionettes in the hands of very evil people who hate normal human life. It is near impossible to help these people rebel against the fantasy that enslaves them by telling them that diseases and diagnoses are not real. This talk of the non-reality of disease is only useful with people with a tendency to rationalism, everyone else are impervious to it. And the people who want to be slaves are not rationalists, and the masters aren't either. They're thinking exists in a very far away province from rationalism.
When Thomas Szasz argued that people should bite the hand that feeds them when that hand is also poisoning them, he was talking about the difficulties in explaining reality to people who hate reality. I doubt that he had any rational hope in convincing any slave or master to stop their immoral actions. Rather, his rational hope was to make clear to other rationalists that it is best to be warned that these fantasies are harmful and persistent, and the strategy to defend oneself from these people is complex and requires some working knowledge of the reality of human moral slavery, how it starts and how it develops over time. But many rationalists are simply to naive and prefer to imagine that there is no such thing as evil. So they disregard the wise observations and advice of a true expert, and they will also end up taking pills, and repenting from doing that.