What Use Guilt?

A Cup Of Tea said:
An objection here on ordering of people as either healthy or non-healthy. That is not modern psychology as I understand it.
Click to expand...
There is no unhealthy mental states?

It seems to me that many afflictions have been shown to be unhealthy to themselves and people around them... Of course the GOP is now saying your mental state should not preclude you from owning s firearm...

I currently disagree...but am awaiting to learn how I am either misguided or misunderstood the topic.
 
wil said:
Of course the GOP is now saying your mental state should not preclude you from owning s firearm...

I currently disagree...but am awaiting to learn how I am either misguided or misunderstood the topic.
Click to expand...
Of course I don’t want mentally-unbalanced people to use a gun. But the difficulty here is how to determine the seriousness of, for example, depression or bipolar disorder. According to the article below, about 20% of the adult population in America have some kind of mental issues. But as we know, those who go shooting others are a significantly minute portion of that population.

NEARLY 1 IN 5 AMERICANS SUFFERS FROM MENTAL ILLNESS EACH YEAR
http://www.newsweek.com/nearly-1-5-americans-suffer-mental-illness-each-year-230608

One of the unintended and unwanted consequences of denying the ownership of firearms due to a mental illness is, those who really want to buy guns (or keep the guns they have) would avoid going to see a doctor even when they sense they may have some kind of mental problem in fear of their doctor visits and taking medication shown in their medical records become a hindrance to owning guns. Which means, it could prevent some people who need psychiatric treatment from receiving it, thus, create more “unstable people with a gun who are untreated”, such as Jared Laughner.

Like anybody else, I do not want the severely mentally-ill nowhere near a gun. I am not against “taking guns away” from those who are dangerously unstable. But the thing is, they can cause harm by using knives, matches and gasoline, or by driving. So, fixating on only guns is misdirected, imo.

Instead, I would suggest all the states to enforce “involuntary psychiatric hold”, but the ACLU is against it and they have good reasons also. Unfortunately, it’s not easy to find a solution that works without violating our civil rights. One thing I can think of is to invest in psychiatric facilities, make them readily available to the public, so anyone can take their family members and get examination and treatment (as an inpatient if necessary) by psychiatric experts at no or little cost to them.

Also, another important thing is to take away the stigma that still exists and make it easy for the affected to admit that they have a problem. Just like you don’t need to be ashamed of having a heart problem, you shouldn’t need to be ashamed of having a brain-chemical problem (for example those who suffer PTSD). It is not your fault.


Well, this is a totally off-topic discussion and I don’t intend to go further in the gun debate. My free time is limited, so right now, I want to focus on how I can help a grassroots effort of unseating our ‘so-called’ president.
 
Last edited:
Well it seemed like a good idea at the time...

I run on the theory that everyone does the best with the knowledge that they have at the moment.

A day or week later...or even a nanosecond after the words come out or the post gets sent, or the fist hits a face or the rock leaves your hand and heads to the window....

At the moment you did....whatever....you had weighed all the options and decided that that...is what you should do.

Doesn't mean in hindsight that it wasnt wrong, wasn't a bad decision....but now you've got new information to place your next decision on.
 
Gordian Knot said:
Methinks we have gotten bogged down in definitions in any event. The entire point of my first post was not how to define guilt; rather my suggestion was instead of feeling guilty, why not attempt to remedy the original bad action.

If through my action, or inaction someone has been harmed, my choice is to take action to put right the harm I caused.

Here is a simple example of what I mean that actually happened in my life. I was told that everyone knew the rules for closing the business I share with a group of others. Someone ignored those rules. The first time I let it slide. The second time they ignored the rules I got mad and confronted them about it.

Only to find out later that the statement "everyone was told" turned out to be false. Some people were not told.

So I wronged someone by causing an unpleasant confrontation because I did not have the facts. What to do? The next time I saw that person I walked up to them and apologized for the confrontation and explained what caused it.

Is that not simple and straight forward? Was guilt required to fix this situation, to make it right? Or was acknowledging that I wronged someone and acted to make amends quite sufficient.

Like I said, this is a simple example, but the solution to the problem is sound. And I believe, a healthy way to deal with doing harm to others.
Click to expand...

Devils' Advocate said:
Would really like input from some of our other regulars (or irregulars for that matter)! Please jump in with your own opinions if you are willing.
Click to expand...

Thomas highlighted one side of guilt earlier, I think. Guilt is "triggered" by something. The nature of those "somethings" are vastly different. The example above doesn't touch the type of guilt a person feels from wronging someone who's now dead. In such a case you can't go to the wronged individual to correct "something" in the past, so a remedy to the original bad action would need some creativity. My main point is this: some people believe their guilt is a grief without remedy. It is my belief a guilt without remedy is what's not required or useless, not guilt itself.

So does a guilt without remedy exist? Here I think Origen's beautiful idea of apocatastasis can play a role. It's the belief all beings will be saved, including "demons". This can serve as a metaphor for individuals who feel a guilt without remedy. All the guilty things we've done can be "saved". To use a non-Abrahamic example, there was Padmasambhava who brought Buddhism to Tibet. He didn't destroy "demons" when he arrived; instead, he transformed them into protectors. Instead of trying to destroy the guilty emotion, one must transform or redirect this emotional energy. But how to do this is the difficult issue for me. To correct guilt, I believe guilt is required to make it right, because one must welcome "guilt" into one's house and become acquainted with her guest in order for transformation to take place. Perhaps guilt is needed to learn, just like the pain from touching a hot stove is needed to learn.

And, as an afterthought, guilt is similar to regret.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top