A place to share interesting articles from Wikipedia.
Rules:
Recommended:
his contention that there is no such thing as mental illness, his contention that individual responsibility is never compromised in those suffering from what is generally considered as mental illness…
Has anyone read much of this guys works? From what I understand he doesn’t think that the insanity defence should exist and seems to have some odds view about psychiatry.
I feel like he is equal parts stupid and based. That's kind of why this article appealed to me.
Edit: I read this wrong, pls ignore (leaving up for context for the response)
You’re right, this is a fucking roller coaster
Szasz was a critic of the influence of modern medicine on society, which he considered to be the secularization of religion's hold on humankind. Criticizing scientism, he targeted psychiatry in particular, underscoring its campaigns against masturbation at the end of the 19th century, its use of medical imagery and language to describe misbehavior, its reliance on involuntary mental hospitalization to protect society, and the use of lobotomy and other interventions to treat psychosis.[citation needed] Szasz consistently paid attention to the power of language in the establishment and maintenance of the social order, both in small interpersonal and in wider social, economic, and/or political spheres.
Dude, to explain why religion is better than science, you chose a “scientific” antimasturbation movement? I hate to break it to you, but the god of Abraham is also famously against onanism.
But the rest of that is hella based.
Criticizing scientism, he targeted psychiatry in particular, underscoring its campaigns against masturbation at the end of the 19th century
He is criticizing anti-masturbation campaigns, not supporting them
Yeah, I misinterpreted that as being pro religion, anti pseudoscientific antimasturbation campaigns, but it’s against both of those. My brain read this:
which he considered to be the secularization of religion's hold on humankind
As this:
which he considered to be the source of the secularization of religion's hold on humankind
Which paints the whole thing in a different light. This whole section is actually green and yellow flags, the red ones are elsewhere.
it’s against both of those
Lol this article is weirdly written. I didn't notice that either before you mentioned it.
Yeah some of it I could potentially see where he’s coming from too, hence the curiosity. I have a family member that cites his views often so don’t know how much is accurately being portrayed.