No, I think you really have misunderstood my tone, which is not at all moralistic, but a bit provocative. I'm not a moralistic person. Also, my interests may not coincide with yours, which doesn't mean that you don't have valid points to make, only that I, personally, don't see any value in having a recognizable "disease" like adhd in the world. I don't see the utility of it. Or, rather, if I had the choice, I would work around it, rather than define others in a category, to pathologize them. My objection is just different from what you appear to imagine. I have the view that many deficiencies could be found, in all sorts of organisms, according to what tasks we might expect them to perform -- but I have no interest in finding such deficiencies. Also, I think we need to embrace our own solutions to problems, rather than create general rubrics. /// Looking at if from the perspective of the kind of interaction we have, what benefit would it be to you for me to acknowledge the objective existence of a disease? I'm not a doctor. I don't particularly have any relationship to the issue. You should just let this one go. I have my views about how society ought to be, and they do not fit a diagnostic model.
No comments:
Post a Comment