1. He doesn’t even like us.
2. The opposite of tongue twisters, sort of.
3. An evaluation of Thomas Szasz.
Harvey Mansfield on economists
Previous post: Henry Farrell reviews my new book
Next post: Penny Politics
Our Books
Modern Principles of Economics
Launching The Innovation Renaissance
The Great Stagnation: How America Ate All the Low-Hanging Fruit of Modern History, Got Sick, and Will(Eventually) Feel Better
Create Your Own Economy: The Path to Prosperity in a Disordered World
Discover Your Inner Economist
Good and Plenty: The Creative Successes of American Arts Funding
Judge and Jury: American Tort Law on Trial
Markets and Cultural Voices: Liberty vs. Power in the Lives of Mexican Amate Painters (Economics, Cognition, and Society)
The Voluntary City: Choice, Community, and Civil Society (Economics, Cognition, and Society)
Creative Destruction: How Globalization Is Changing the World's Cultures
Changing the Guard: Private Prisons and the Control of Crime
What Price Fame?
In Praise of Commercial Culture
Entrepreneurial Economics: Bright Ideas from the Dismal Science
Contact Us
At a 1996 debate, well-known psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey summed up the sentiment nicely with a joke that began: “Let me ask an important question. And this is a question that will be asked by future generations. The question is: Who was Dr. Szasz?†
Who was E. Fuller Torrey?
Last year, while standing in line to buy some items, I got into a discussion
with someone who turned out to be a local shrinkologist. I mentioned I’m a
libertarian and a fan of Szasz’s writings. You should have seen the foam forming
on this guy’s mouth. It was as if I were Judas invoking the devil.
The shrinkiatric establishment will do anything to defend its turf, including
denouncing naysayers like Szasz and their supporters.
Who will replace Szasz when he is gone?
The psychiatric es
The shrinkiatric establishment will do anything to defend its turf, including
denouncing naysayers like Szasz and their supporters.
Of course, it’s always possible that Szasz is just plain wrong and “the shrinkiatric establishment” knows it.
Basing your views of a scientific issue on your political opinions is not very sensible.
but where is the science in psychiatry?
In the pharmaceutical labs, in the medical schools, in the journals, etc. It is plain fact that that much mental illness has a physiological basis that can be treated with medication, and that psychotherapy is also beneficial in some cases. To deny that is simply foolish.
To claim there is no science in psychiatry is to claim that medical schools, hospitals, and who knows who else are all engaged in a massive conspiracy to deceive the public. Do you really find that plausible?
Isn’t it more likely that Szasz, however plausible (or not) his ideas at the time he advanced them, decades ago, has simply been proven mistaken? This does happen to people, even when it would be unfair to label them as crackpots when they first set forth their thinking.
The fact that lots of learned studies in schools, journals, etc. allegedly
show that Marxism has a scientific basis doesn’t make it true.
This is nonsense. There may be writers who make this claim, but that doesn’t remotely resemble the kind of serious work that researchers into various aspects of mental illness do. There is no relationship between the two.
Funny you should mention Marxism, though. I put libertarians and Marxists in the same category – people so devoted to an ideology that they absolutely must shoehorn everything into their preferred scheme of the world.
Besides, what are you saying? That physical illnesses that manifest themselves in “weird behavior” aren’t mental illness? So as soon as someone finds a physical basis for mental illness it no longer qualifies as mental illness? If that’s your point then it’s pretty silly.
Like Marxists, you are letting your ideology determine your scientific opinions, just as I said to begin with.
There is no such thing as libertarian physics or chemistry or economics.
Actually, there is libertarian economics, and libertarian psychiatry as well, apparently.
This isn’t silly at all-it’s how science advances.
It’s extremely silly. To show that mental illness doesn’t exist you just redefine it away. here’s the logic:
“There is no such thing as mental illness.”
“What about depression?”
“Nonsense. Everyone feels bad sometimes. That’s not an illness.”
“But we’ve found a physical basis for depression in brain chemistry and psychiatrists can treat it with medication.”
“Oh. Then it’s not a mental illness, but a physical illness.”
Not very convincing.
No one ever died of “mental illness” or even suffered from it, because there
is no such thing. There are only physical illnesses, like pneumonia,
influenza, brain tumors, etc. Since no one can be mentally ill, no one
can be cured of it.
You are a fool. Depression is a major cause of suicide, among other points.
You know what? You can deny or claim that mental illness exists.
But you know what?
There are still people who have been horrendously abused and remain at state hospitals for the rest of their lives–homeless–and in need of help from so many people who deny it. Too those people are too busy blogging about how ridiculous the concept of mental illness is.
Comments on this entry are closed.