Something that makes humans unproductive? (drugs?)
"I feel ill".
<Comment deleted by user>
An illness is when you say that you are fine but aren't. With that being said, I feel fine!
When you feel that there's something wrong in your body, it's an "illness".
somethings that hurts, in all subjectivity and keeps following you in time? short illness, long illness. fatal illness, crippling illness, tiresome illness, sickening illness....
reprieve of illness could become joy. non-illness.
maybe life is an illness.
reprieve of illness could become joy. non-illness.
maybe life is an illness.
@WassimBerbar said in #5:
> When you feel that there's something wrong in your body, it's an "illness".
Not necessarily. Then, disorders would be classified as illnesses.
According to Google, an illness is "a disease or period of sickness affecting the body or mind."
> When you feel that there's something wrong in your body, it's an "illness".
Not necessarily. Then, disorders would be classified as illnesses.
According to Google, an illness is "a disease or period of sickness affecting the body or mind."
a disorder might make you ill, if inadequate for your continued health (body or mind) in the environment one is expected to keep living in. (i guess that makes my understanding a pair of conditions, the environment AND the disorder might make you ill).
let's try something: illness is an ill-posed disorder? (kidding... or am I... or am I not.... or am I.... yes these are ellipses)
let's try something: illness is an ill-posed disorder? (kidding... or am I... or am I not.... or am I.... yes these are ellipses)
@bayonetCHARGE said in #1:
> Something that makes humans unproductive? (drugs?)
You know someone is sick when they look weird and say they are fine
> Something that makes humans unproductive? (drugs?)
You know someone is sick when they look weird and say they are fine
Something don't fit. (there, i am really kidding, ... I hope).
Well actually, assuming disorder is referring to "not normal", with a binary vision of the normal statistical distribution (which is a continuous object by the way), a disorder might be being somewhere on the curve outside of some thresdhold...
If there were morphological aspects, then by definition it would look discrete and one could say disorder if the frequency in known (or studied) population is small.
But the illness might come from the environment not having been aware of such difference (or prepared). In a society that seeks to maximize the potential of all its citizens (or members), the difference is not an illness if a favorable environment is (can be) made available.
But being social animals, having any difference, at certain age where socialisation seems like the life or death criterion, having a disorder or not fitting, or even not being part of the apparent majority (and we humans have so many ways of advertising conformism and clique belonging, we even have slangs, and piercing and uniforms, and what not), will be experienced as an illness (possibly from subject of difference and from environment perspective).
And formative years events will shape the future relation and socialisation. (I am not an expert in that, but i think that is common knowledge).
Now if we dig a bit in the biological processes that appear as morphological differences, during development, such differences may just depend on certain bio-molecular factors that are also normally distributed in the population, but undergo non-linear expansions through dynamic networks as the body grows from one cell to mature adult.
I focused on morphological to show that discrete features themselves may not be so discrete when we start looking at the full complexity of nature. I would expect then same thoughts to apply in the case of other differences where we have difficulties adjusting our common senses depending on where we have lives on the curve, or apparent "pixellisation" version of it... (tradition has some inertia, and sometimes it is just practical administrative constraint, where things are made optimal for average traits).
think left handed and right handed. think Roman superstition going all the way to linguistics... being left handed was an illness for a while. guess what. i am mostly left-handed (actually cross-handed, fine left, coarse right, see even there, there are degrees, yet there is a bulk bias toward right handedness, the brain is not fully symmetric either).
I am talking about disorder, in general. but some of the above is to cover some possible slants in understanding the op question (not attributing anythin to op btw). sometimes the illness is the environment.
wow. oneliner gone bloated.
Well actually, assuming disorder is referring to "not normal", with a binary vision of the normal statistical distribution (which is a continuous object by the way), a disorder might be being somewhere on the curve outside of some thresdhold...
If there were morphological aspects, then by definition it would look discrete and one could say disorder if the frequency in known (or studied) population is small.
But the illness might come from the environment not having been aware of such difference (or prepared). In a society that seeks to maximize the potential of all its citizens (or members), the difference is not an illness if a favorable environment is (can be) made available.
But being social animals, having any difference, at certain age where socialisation seems like the life or death criterion, having a disorder or not fitting, or even not being part of the apparent majority (and we humans have so many ways of advertising conformism and clique belonging, we even have slangs, and piercing and uniforms, and what not), will be experienced as an illness (possibly from subject of difference and from environment perspective).
And formative years events will shape the future relation and socialisation. (I am not an expert in that, but i think that is common knowledge).
Now if we dig a bit in the biological processes that appear as morphological differences, during development, such differences may just depend on certain bio-molecular factors that are also normally distributed in the population, but undergo non-linear expansions through dynamic networks as the body grows from one cell to mature adult.
I focused on morphological to show that discrete features themselves may not be so discrete when we start looking at the full complexity of nature. I would expect then same thoughts to apply in the case of other differences where we have difficulties adjusting our common senses depending on where we have lives on the curve, or apparent "pixellisation" version of it... (tradition has some inertia, and sometimes it is just practical administrative constraint, where things are made optimal for average traits).
think left handed and right handed. think Roman superstition going all the way to linguistics... being left handed was an illness for a while. guess what. i am mostly left-handed (actually cross-handed, fine left, coarse right, see even there, there are degrees, yet there is a bulk bias toward right handedness, the brain is not fully symmetric either).
I am talking about disorder, in general. but some of the above is to cover some possible slants in understanding the op question (not attributing anythin to op btw). sometimes the illness is the environment.
wow. oneliner gone bloated.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.