When did the "study of" disappear from "-ology" & school? I'm taking an online course on the sociology of mental illness and so far the earliest source that is referenced dates to only 1961.
WTF?
One has to realize that the concept of mental illness, in the western sense, has its roots in the historical base of western history. Yup, that ol' bitch called monotheism. Sure there are references outside of that tradition, but none so clearly demonized as those set of deviances described with regard to the "God"-fearing norm. If you have read my earlier posts i clearly explain and dispel the humanistic illusion of monotheism by way of rationality, not "science."
I admit that the classification of others as mentally ill has its roots long before the "birth of Christ" but as far as western tradition is concerned, stigmatization of the "disturbed," "deviant," or "mentally ill" claims its deepest roots in the monotheistic assumptions of sin.
Case in point, why is it that temporally equal eastern conceptions of mental conditions are never recognized in contemporary literature. Is it because those societies have endured and predated our own that qualify their perspectives as invalid? So i reiterate; when does "-ology" come into play? or is that only applicable in a self-confirming myopic vision?
WTF?
One has to realize that the concept of mental illness, in the western sense, has its roots in the historical base of western history. Yup, that ol' bitch called monotheism. Sure there are references outside of that tradition, but none so clearly demonized as those set of deviances described with regard to the "God"-fearing norm. If you have read my earlier posts i clearly explain and dispel the humanistic illusion of monotheism by way of rationality, not "science."
I admit that the classification of others as mentally ill has its roots long before the "birth of Christ" but as far as western tradition is concerned, stigmatization of the "disturbed," "deviant," or "mentally ill" claims its deepest roots in the monotheistic assumptions of sin.
Case in point, why is it that temporally equal eastern conceptions of mental conditions are never recognized in contemporary literature. Is it because those societies have endured and predated our own that qualify their perspectives as invalid? So i reiterate; when does "-ology" come into play? or is that only applicable in a self-confirming myopic vision?
No comments:
Post a Comment