Charles Darwin was mentally ill

reply to post by BANANAMONTANA


Absolutely. Anaximander lived over 2500 years ago, and he was already discussing it.

www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

Evolutionary theory begins with the Ionian philosopher Anaximander (ca. 611 - 546 B. C. E.). Very little is known about his life, but it is known that he wrote a long poem, On Nature, summarizing his researches. This poem is now lost, and has survived only in extracts quoted in other works. Enough survives, however, that Anaximander's thought can be reconstructed with some confidence. For Anaximander, the world had arisen from an undifferentiated, indeterminate substance, the apeiron. The Earth, which had coalesced out of the apeiron, had been covered in water at one stage, with plants and animals arising from mud. Humans were not present at the earliest stages; they arose from fish. This poem was quite influential on later thinkers, including Aristotle.

I also like how the mystics decsribe the big bang in the universe creations stories too, such as the Hymn of Creation in the Rig Veda.

It really makes you wonder what the world would be like today had we not lost over a thousand years of intellectual exchange and development due to religious fanaticism. The Greeks were building calculating machines way back then too.

en.wikipedia.org...






All that lost time is another reason that we do not need to be fanning the flames of the long war between religion and science. They were once compatible, and it should be that way again, imho.



[edit on 27-6-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by thomas_
You can't try as much and as hard as you can, but there are enough inconsistencies in the human evolution theory for any intelligent person to question. In the very same way that there is enough holes and inconsistencies in any religious books for one to question it or not accept it.

If this is so then please provide those inconsistences and if correct i will happily change my mind about evolution. That's the thing i change my mind with evidence, i have no static positions which will never change, unlike your self. If you can't provide the evidence then you are simply speaking from a position of ignorance.

If you once again fail to take up that challenge it will show you up as either someone trolling the thread or someone who creates their opinion from what they wish is true rather than what is true.

Last reply unless you can provide evidence.

Puffff.....

Is that to be like a threat like where you won't be giving more attention?

Your mind is made you believe in what you want. I'm not trying to change the world and even less the way you think. If the current theories for you all fit, make sense and explain for A+B how humans were created then great. I just wish I was you.

For me they don't and like you I'm still waiting for someone to come up with real evidences to explain to me why evolution wasn't so democratic with other species and why it was so special and selective with certain "monkeys" or "monkey".

Or how in the hell scientists could use a single cranium or a mere teeth to justify a entire stage of the human evolution.

Or how "monkey X" was able to create cars, the internet while every other species in this planet that were here way before humans and passed by the very same environmental conditions are still doing what animals do and at best know how to use a rock to crack a nut.

Or why scientists tend to dismiss or discard evidences that don't fit their puzzles turning them into non-evidences and mere annoyances that shouldn't be taken into account.

Or explain for me for once and for all the whole deal with the missing transitional stages between one and another stage or branch and their order because scientists don't seem to reach a consensus regarding that and keep changing it. Something that I find odd since that should be a well established FACT like you pointed out.

Or maybe how the whole interbreeding was possible in some of the current theories.

Or the blood type O thing in monkeys and chimps.

Or that little inconvenience with the mutation rates pointed by some geneticists.


And the list goes on and on...


Current human evolution theory at is best is nothing more than speculation. Far from a fact and for being a answer for the real question. If that's considered truth than for me is nothing but a lie which the majority chooses to believe.

I would be really happy if you could explain me these and other points not mentioned above.

Maybe it will be a your "Nobel Prize" winning post and it would put a end in this debate saving billions of dollars in research and a whole lot of work from geneticists, biologists, creationists, religious freaks and a whole bunch of people around the globe.

It's funny how this subject is so controversial no matter where you discuss it. Probably because we have only two fronts and both are blind and pretentious enough to not see the middle of it, they just want to win and be right no matter what.

I accept the fact that I don't have the answer for it. I do however have the question which neither side was able to give me an answer me since both sides are lost with their vanities.

Anyways... looking forward to your reply where you lecture me on human evolution and explains to me for once and for all how we were created.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
All that lost time is another reason that we do not need to be fanning the flames of the long war between religion and science. They were once compatible, and it should be that way again, imho.

I applaud you

This division caused by the silly vanity of being right and the owner of truth added to extremes in both faith in the intangible and faith only on the tangible is what holds the real progress from happening.

Where there is division there is no evolution, only the illusion of progress.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
And I have already proven that Darwin was doing fine spiritually, your point has been debunked. ,

Our Definitions of what it means to "do fine spiritually" differ somewhat. I dont consider going to church on Sunday as "doing fine spiritually".

Consider you were an expert in .... oh any example will do....say, physics. I could present you with an examination of the subject matter, and you would score 100%. Now, you have a depressive episode. I could present you with the same test. You are still intellectually capable of scoring 100%. However, you now refuse to take the test. You are too tired, and don't want to be bothered with it.

I perhaps failed to explain the new-agers viewpoint properly. What I say now I say not to debunk conventional views but to further clarify what "people like me" (bigot sociopaths according to some) are trying to say.

We are trying to say that intelligence and sanity are not only intellectual capacity.

I believe that the cliche of the inept, skinny, cranky or even mad scientist comes from the mistaken belief that intelligence is only intellectual.

To us or from a spiritual perspective, intelligence is also:

SPIRIT

BODY

EMOTION

A human is a WHOLE thing, not only a brain.

So from this perspective, if someone is either emotionally ill OR mentally ill, there is something missing to his WHOLESOMEness and therefore, in my definition, in his INTELLIGENCE.

My own life is dedicated to some extent in opposition to the Ideology of seeing a human being as nothing more than a lump of meat and a reactive brain and instead seeing a human as Spirit.

_______________________________________________________

I dont really care who agrees or disagrees with this. Neither do I mind harsh disagreement.

What I do care about is that "our side" is correctly represented.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
The rest of the OP is not really worth comment. It seems to me sort of a mindless and self serving bashing of someone for purposes of self aggrandizement. The logic is terrible.

Ah yes, the cliche that I dont know or hate science. As if Biology is the only field of science.

I admit I didnt like Biology as a child. Neither math. I liked everything Darwin hated: Literature, Art, Philosophy, Linguistics.

One could say that Darwin is left-brained and I am right-brained. Hence the conflict.

What you consider "mindless" others consider valuable. I know its staggering that others might have different values than you.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Consider you were an expert in .... oh any example will do....say, physics. I could present you with an examination of the subject matter, and you would score 100%. Now, you have a depressive episode. I could present you with the same test. You are still intellectually capable of scoring 100%. However, you now refuse to take the test. You are too tired, and don't want to be bothered with it.

I perhaps failed to explain the new-agers viewpoint properly. What I say now I say not to debunk conventional views but to further clarify what "people like me" (bigot sociopaths according to some) are trying to say.

We are trying to say that intelligence and sanity are not only intellectual capacity.

I believe that the cliche of the inept, skinny, cranky or even mad scientist comes from the mistaken belief that intelligence is only intellectual.

To us or from a spiritual perspective, intelligence is also:

SPIRIT

BODY

EMOTION

A human is a WHOLE thing, not only a brain.

So from this perspective, if someone is either emotionally ill OR mentally ill, there is something missing to his WHOLESOMEness and therefore, in my definition, in his INTELLIGENCE.

My own life is dedicated to some extent in opposition to the Ideology of seeing a human being as nothing more than a lump of meat and a reactive brain and instead seeing a human as Spirit.

_______________________________________________________

I dont really care who agrees or disagrees with this. Neither do I mind harsh disagreement.

What I do care about is that "our side" is correctly represented.

I am sorry this is boring now, some people have a habit of writing and starting threads to bait, bait and bait. Turning and twisting and writhing around. Its boring and most people see it.

There is nothing spiritual about trying to define and judge others sorry if you believe that you are missing the point.

Look in the mirror you claim to be holding blah blah, it's in one of your prior posts and i'm too bored reading them i cant be bothered to find it.

yawnn..

sorry scrub that.I am myself judging ..so my apologies for calling this boring.

where's yoda when you need him... come back yoda...

[edit on 28-6-2010 by BANANAMONTANA]

reply to post by Skyfloating

You said:

from a spiritual perspective, intelligence is also:

SPIRIT

BODY

EMOTION

A human is a WHOLE thing, not only a brain.

So from this perspective, if someone is either emotionally ill OR mentally ill, there is something missing to his WHOLESOMEness and therefore, in my definition, in his INTELLIGENCE.

I do respect your thoughts on this, and to some extent, I agree, considering a holistic assessment of human functioning, which I call "global functioning", and refer to it as needed.

However, when one is focusing on esoteric definitions then one should level the playing field at the outset, by giving definitions and clarifications, don't you think?

You made the statement to another poster that you don't consider one who "goes to church on Sunday, to be doing well spiritually".

So by that statement, you do clearly open the door for separation of the areas of functioning. They of course, do operate together, to create the wholeness of who we are, when we are clicking on six cylinders.

There are intellectual "Over-rides". If one is terrified to step outside, one might "override" the emotion of fear, by telling himself, and relying on the encouragement of others, that it is okay. So, the intellect over-rides the emotion. The spirit might override intentional cruelty. The spirit might provide encouragement when despair is trying to dominate.

If a mother is in bed with a depressive episode, and her child is crying for help, she will get up to go see about the child. Her desire to help her child overrides her desire to stay in bed with the covers pulled over her head.

So it all does work together, and in a what can be a lovely and deliciously complicated way. But one does not simply negate the other, particularly in the scenario we are discussing; the life and work of Charles Darwin. You know this from history, and I won't presume to give a list of examples, although I could.

When mood is poor, we are sometimes impotent to accomplish. I doubt if Darwin made his theory, or wrote his book, when he was having an episode, although there are plenty of others who employed their depression for such. (Honore de Balzac, case in point, who said if it wasn't for depression and alcohol, he would never have written a word). lol.

Even if one area goes underdeveloped, or unrecognized, it is still at play. I might not read and study to improve my intelligence. I might not meditate, or do things to nurture my spirit. I might not give in to my emotions, and be angry as much as I like, or cry as much as I like. I might not even acknowledge that I have these feelings.

But they remain. There are there, whether I acknowledge them or not.
On a particular day, I might be able to focus on one. If I am in a state of grief, I have no choice but to give way to my emotions.

If I am focused, writing a paper or making a presentation, I must then rely on my intellect.

So here, we see the "overrides", and our ability to focus on one specific area of our functioning, whether it be physical, intellectual, or spiritual, etc.

You can do this. I can do this. We all can. Charles Darwin could do it too, and obviously did a heck of a job.

Of course I have read his theory, who hasn't. But I knew almost nothing of the man's personal life and private characteristics. But having reviewed the information presented here, I am in fact, admiring him all the more, for seeing the obstacles he overcame, the demons he wrestled with, and the downright fortitude he showed in being able to produce such a piece of work, in view of his issues. Now that's a man who is intelligent.

Gotta go to work now.



ETA: The overrides don't always work with severe mental illness. This is why they are called mental illness.

But other than having depressive episodes, and generalized anxiety, I don't think it is proven here that Darwin was psychotic, or had any other disorder which would have effected his writing The Origin of the Species, or developing the theory of evolution.

Now, Sky. Admit it.



[edit on 6/28/2010 by ladyinwaiting]

Originally posted by Skyfloating

What you consider "mindless" others consider valuable. I know its staggering that others might have different values than you.

I dont find it staggering at all. Perhaps you should check my signature. I think it is self evident that people who already dislike evolutionary theory will applaud your "brilliance," where brilliance means you are saying something they already think is true.

It doesnt take a genius to tap into popular opinion and spout it to make oneself look genius.

I personally do value the spiritual. I do hold values very similar to your own stated beliefs that humans are not just bodies. But we arent just spirits either. We have the physical, the intellectual, and the spiritual for a reason, and YES they should be valued and kept in harmony.

But your OP was not a call for harmony. It was ignorance. Your mocking of his shocking himself to treat his depression displayed both your lack of compassion (spiritual) and knowledge (intellect.) Clearly your body was involved as something was pressing the keys.

For someone so spiritual, please explain to us how launching an attack on a brilliant man (true brilliance, not tapping into popular sentiment to appear brilliant) who suffered greatly both with his illness and with the divide he felt over contradicting a religion he had been raised in, is a spiritual act?

Your stated premise, "Well the secular attack MY beliefs, therefore I should attack theirs" what spiritual or religious basis do you have for that o Awakened One? What on Earth is that except the basest lashing out of an inflamed ego?

SOME of the secular attack your beliefs. SOME of the secular mock your values. And yet you launch an attack on a man who did neither, which gave the appearance of your disbelief in evolution, that you later said was not the case. What exactly then, was your point other than allowing your inflamed Ego the chance to vent its ire over someone daring to question YOUR values, to turn your self righteousness back on you?

"They attacked my values so I will attack them to show them how it feels" is petty, and childish.

Lets not forget, also, that Darwin was deeply torn over his "discovery" (bearing in mind all the others who came before him that also contributed to it) because of the CHURCHES stand. Had they been willing at the time to say, "Well this must be how God created" there would be no divide. Many scientists ARE aware of their own spirituality, but what they cannot afford to be is dogmatically Christian in some fields.

I just want to say that in a particular way, it is funny and very interesting to see that the problem the OP brings to us, is been so bashed and turned down by so many; but if we go check in the UFO/ALiens foruns , for exemple, the same type of argumentation is used also by many to ridicule and discredit any kind of "Witness"!!
As far as any type of mental problem is noticed, (and yes a simple case of depression it's enough to call some one insane there), the whole case is automaticly dismissed/debunked/closed!
Here, the mental problems of Mr. Darwin "are not a problem at all" for many of the same guys included!!
Well...in the end it not shock me so much, because it's the way cynicism works in our world any way

Thank you to the OP for bring this to us, you have give me something interesting to think and dig a little more

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
However, when one is focusing on esoteric definitions then one should level the playing field at the outset, by giving definitions and clarifications, don't you think?

Had I done that

The OP would be balanced and harmonious and not even make it page 1 for discussion and learning.

Now, Sky. Admit it.

No. It would be easier to admit if Darwins work were actually one of radiant brilliance, but unfortunately a lousy state leads to lousy output even if most of us can override a lousy state temporarily.

Someone who thinks that the most important stuff is the stuff that can be seen with the naked eye, cannot see spirit, cannot see the "invisible" energy from which all emerges.

This type of person sees plants, animals, humans, trees completely differently than a spiritually trained person does. He will see someone planting a seed and then see the plant grow. He will then conclude: "The plant comes from the seed". He will also think that stuffing and hanging up dead animals is more interesting than poetry (Darwin) or that electrocuting the meat-body can cure the spirit (emotional-body) (Darwin).

"But the plant did come from the seed! I saw it!" say the people who only view things with the naked eye.

And of Course thats what it looks like and me claiming any differently makes me look crazy. Oh well, cant be helped.

But those who cant see the origin of the plant could at least ask whether the planet was caused not only by the seed but also by the hand planting it and also by the ground and also by the air and also by the sunlight. And what caused the air and sunlight and the hand putting it there? So soon we can count TRILLIONS of causes for the plant growing and the idea of "a leads to b" becomes absurd and we once again have to consult the ancient vedas (for example) that teach that a does not lead to b. If a led to b then a supposed "origin" such as the big-bang could be defined as some ultimate "starting point" - but it cant because in linear thinking there always has to be something prior to that.

None of this even comes close to how life works. And thats why we have a few Billion souls running around on the Planet who are completely confused and overwhelmed. Because these souls are educated by all of this "geniuses".

reply to post by Umbra Sideralis


Thanks for noticing the double-standard. Anyone who believes in spiritual, paranormal, aliens, UFOs etc. is quickly branded "mentally ill" while those following the official line taught in school and college get all indignant when their own Guru is exposed as a complete nut.

[edit on 29-6-2010 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by maria_stardust

To suggest that evolutionary science should be disregarded because Darwin may have suffered from some form of psychological distress is simply ridiculous.

There's a guy who sees everything as having coincidentally arisen from dead matter.

To some of us thats beyond ridiculous.

reply to post by Skyfloating


He said nothing of the sort. Darwin's theory was about evolution not abiogenesis.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Anyone who believes in spiritual, paranormal, aliens, UFOs etc. is quickly branded "mentally ill" while those following the official line taught in school and college get all indignant when their own Guru is exposed as a complete nut.

(Bolding mine)

I'm into or interested or believe in all those things that I highlighted, I don't see how any of that has to do with anything.
In fact I'd bet that most of the people arguing and telling you you're ignorant and offensive and so on, also either believe in or are interested in those subjects too.


(Organised religion is another matter)


This really is another strange thread Sky.

You make them to just insult people and stir up arguments and bad-feelings, and then always turn around and say "I was doing it for the right reason and I don't really believe this and blah blah"


If you want a discussion, then why not discuss?

You're generally just rude, dismissive and if the persons opinion doesn't fit with yours... you don't want to discuss.

Very odd.

[edit on 29/6/10 by blupblup]

reply to post by Skyfloating


I simply fail to understand how you can use Darwin's 'mental illness' to support your refusal to accept his theory of evolution.

People with 'mental illnesses' have contributed significantly to the advancement of human understanding in most fields including science and philosophy etc.

And your theory that physical and mental illnesses are some sort of divine, karmic retribution for alleged previous sins etc lacks any supportive evidence and relies on blind faith in some sort of beleif system.

I am really suprised this thread is still ongoing, it seems to be going round in circles

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Umbra Sideralis

 

Thanks for noticing the double-standard. Anyone who believes in spiritual, paranormal, aliens, UFOs etc. is quickly branded "mentally ill" while those following the official line taught in school and college get all indignant when their own Guru is exposed as a complete nut.

[edit on 29-6-2010 by Skyfloating]

As I have previously stated I am interested in matters spiritual and enjoy discussing them.
The paranormal is quite fascinating and I have an open mind.
I think that is highly likely that aliens exist and enjoy reading different theories etc about them as I do UFO's.

I'm not mentally ill. (Well, not officially, but there are many who may doubt that!)

I don't regard Darwin as a Guru, or a 'complete nut' but rather as one in a line of people who recognised the role of evolution in the natural world and as the first popular exponent of the theory.
He also happened to have a few mental issues, like countless other's before and after him.

His work has been developed upon by numerous scientists afterwards.

You are implying that people who believe in evolution can not believe in the afore mentioned subjects.

That is shear nonsense.

So is our "USA" president..... and the elite as well. After all can you be sane and want to kill off 80% of the world?


I rather deal with Darwin!

Yeah what theory of evolution has ever said Humans evolved directly from chimps or monkeys? Must have been something in the 2010 special edition of the New Testament.

The Bible is rhetoric, and has invariably been rhetoric, propoganda, idealistic nonsense for years. All cultures have "atheisized" a some form of Deity(ies) over the last few centuries. Think of Greek Gods, nobody believes in Greek Gods anymore. With religion, people believe what their parents believe. Evolution is an acquired test that one has to study and put forth the effort to understand in order to wholly take in as undoubtedly the way of life, unless one is content with agnosticism. Religion is for the lazy, Evolution is for the literate.

It's impossible to argue Creation vs Evolution since for Creation there is nothing to argue but mindless drivel that circumvents reason for the sake of more mindless drivel that is impossible to respond to ("You don't understand GOD's plan", what am I suppose to say to that?).

Life is quite explainable without the invocation of some God or supernatural being. Let's make the ridiculous assumption for a moment that there may be a Creator, well who/what is the Creator's Creator. Its a neverending circle of riffraff.

Evolution, based on sound theories and experiments, in accordance with the laws of chemistry, physics, and even the nature of probability, has its beginnings in nothingness (Oxygen-free environment), where by a random accident (improbable from our viewpoint but when dealing with astronomical time scale certainly within the high realm of probability) a primitive replicator emerged from probably some inorganic material (crystals/clay?), which was then usurped by RNA, the more 'modern' replicator and conducive to the selective pressures of natural selection that ensure propagation.

Watson and Crick essentially validated beyond doubt the theory of evolution (if it was in need of any validation) through their work in the field of DNA/genetic material. And yet religious wackos blindly take solace in their fairy tale.

The Earth is 6 billion years old. 6 billion years. Humans are not equipped to think in terms of billions because our lifespan is only about 3/4 of a century. So the 'easy exit' is the 'God exit.' Again which is mindless drivel.

Why should a 'Darwinist' have to show claims that Religions are fundamentally flawed? It is not the job of a person to show evidence that something is false. It is prudent and imminently reasonable to assume all claims are false, whereby the job of the party objecting is to present evidence of truth. Does not religion apply?

reply to post by Skyfloating





"Now, Sky. Admit it. "

No. It would be easier to admit if Darwins work were actually one of radiant brilliance, but unfortunately a lousy state leads to lousy output even if most of us can override a lousy state temporarily.

...and we sometimes allow sensibilities to override stubbornness.

I love the ideas you describe. Absolutely marvel at the ideas. It's reminiscent of a Planet called Pandora, where people used little tentacle/membrane things in their tails, to bond with trees, and giant birds, and such.

But we don't have those marvelous tails. What we have is a large population of people on a planet who even after all this time, are still trying to figure things out. We use the discipline of science to try to do that, and we've had many successes.

For a personal disclosure: By no means am I an atheist, but by no means do I reject the theory of evolution, which to most people, including myself, is more than just a theory. My sensibilities won't permit it. If Darwin hadn't developed the theory, someone else would have. Digging in the dirt continues to teach us many things.

I will never understand why people think creationism/evolution are mutually exclusive, or for that matter, why someone who has a mood disorder is rendered unable to produce a work of science.

*one last note.

People like to think of the brain as the body's computer. Wait a second.

THink of it as a GLAND. Yep. Very likely that is exactly what it is. All these hormones, chemicals, drugs being secreted. Little electrical currents firing and misfiring, while some areas secrete more of one drug than another, or not enough on some days, or too much on another.
It is simultaneously compartmentalized while working as a whole. It's stable, yet unstable.

A magnificent marvel. And the conscious thinking mind? pffft. I'd like to see someone explain that one. And the spirit? That's faith.