Could guilt be behind it all?!
Question: Could guilt be behind it all!?
I am not one to subscribe to 'root cause' explanations of what are usually complex situations and dilemmas!. However, is it at all possible that subconscious guilt is at least largely responsible for many neuroses and mental aberrations, which are not strictly organic in nature!? Exclude also, transient depression, which is often the result of recent tragedy in our lives!.Www@Answer-Health@Com
Answers:
Interesting question!
The psychoanalysts who developed therapy (as well as the revival movements from the 60s and 70s, cf Woody Allen) would certainly agree!. Me!? Not so sure!.
Guilt is certainly a possibility for many problems, especially anxiety, but there are other underlying emotions that define "neuroses" and mental problems!. Take your pick: Sadness, fear, anger, shame, etc!.
The issue here is a difference between primary and secondary emotions!. What I mean by this is that primary emotions, the number of which is debatable, are the "root" cause not only of severe problems but simple reactions!. The secondary (and tertiary, etc!.) emotions spring up from the primary emotion to defend oneself!. The primary and secondary emotions can be the same, but usually they are different!. The secondary emotion is often even more painful and more prolonged
An example that stems from what you have mentioned is guilt leading to depression!. Someone who feels they have done wrong--even if they haven't--is prone to get devastated about this to the point of shutting down!. Also, guilt can breed more guilt, such that you feel guilty about being stupid for feeling guilty, or for some other reason!.
You bring up an interesting point!. Thanks for posting!Www@Answer-Health@Com
The psychoanalysts who developed therapy (as well as the revival movements from the 60s and 70s, cf Woody Allen) would certainly agree!. Me!? Not so sure!.
Guilt is certainly a possibility for many problems, especially anxiety, but there are other underlying emotions that define "neuroses" and mental problems!. Take your pick: Sadness, fear, anger, shame, etc!.
The issue here is a difference between primary and secondary emotions!. What I mean by this is that primary emotions, the number of which is debatable, are the "root" cause not only of severe problems but simple reactions!. The secondary (and tertiary, etc!.) emotions spring up from the primary emotion to defend oneself!. The primary and secondary emotions can be the same, but usually they are different!. The secondary emotion is often even more painful and more prolonged
An example that stems from what you have mentioned is guilt leading to depression!. Someone who feels they have done wrong--even if they haven't--is prone to get devastated about this to the point of shutting down!. Also, guilt can breed more guilt, such that you feel guilty about being stupid for feeling guilty, or for some other reason!.
You bring up an interesting point!. Thanks for posting!Www@Answer-Health@Com
Here's a VERY cool self applied therapy that does not require you t go back to the 'root cause'!.!.!. it is very effective, I know :)
Here's the link belowWww@Answer-Health@Com
Here's the link belowWww@Answer-Health@Com
a whatty what what!?Www@Answer-Health@Com
Some thinkers have theorized that guilt is used as a tool of social control!. Since guilty people feel they are undeserving, they are less likely to assert their rights and prerogatives!. Thus, those in power seek to cultivate a sense of guilt among the populace, in order to make them more tractable!. This is especially so within multicultural and multiracial societies where the governments of the day, need a denationalized population, so there is no collective, national cohesiveness as guilt is used in large urban areas to fragment and control the populace!.[citation needed]
Some evolutionary psychologists theorize that guilt and shame helped maintain beneficial relationships, such as reciprocal altruism!.[3] If a person feels guilty when he harms another or even fails to reciprocate kindness, he is more likely not to harm others or become too selfish; in this way, he reduces the chances of retaliation by members of his tribe and thereby increases his survival prospects, and those of the tribe or group!. As with any other emotion, guilt can be manipulated to control or influence others!.
Another common notion is that guilt is assigned by social processes such as a jury trial, i!.e!. that it is a strictly legal concept!. Thus the ruling of a jury that O!.J!. Simpson or Julius Rosenberg was "guilty" or "not guilty" is taken as an actual judgement by the whole society that they must act as if they were so!. By corollary, the ruling that such a person is "not guilty" may not be so taken, due to the asymmetry in the assumption that one is assumed innocent until proven guilty and prefers to take the risk of freeing a guilty party over convicting innocents!.
Still others -- often, but not always, theists of one type or another -- believe that the origin of guilt comes from violating universal principles of right and wrong!. In most instances, people who believe this also acknowledge that, even though there is proper guilt from doing 'wrong' instead of doing 'right,' people endure all sorts of guilty feelings that don't stem from violating universal moral principles!.
Yours Sincerly
Billy TownsendWww@Answer-Health@Com
Some evolutionary psychologists theorize that guilt and shame helped maintain beneficial relationships, such as reciprocal altruism!.[3] If a person feels guilty when he harms another or even fails to reciprocate kindness, he is more likely not to harm others or become too selfish; in this way, he reduces the chances of retaliation by members of his tribe and thereby increases his survival prospects, and those of the tribe or group!. As with any other emotion, guilt can be manipulated to control or influence others!.
Another common notion is that guilt is assigned by social processes such as a jury trial, i!.e!. that it is a strictly legal concept!. Thus the ruling of a jury that O!.J!. Simpson or Julius Rosenberg was "guilty" or "not guilty" is taken as an actual judgement by the whole society that they must act as if they were so!. By corollary, the ruling that such a person is "not guilty" may not be so taken, due to the asymmetry in the assumption that one is assumed innocent until proven guilty and prefers to take the risk of freeing a guilty party over convicting innocents!.
Still others -- often, but not always, theists of one type or another -- believe that the origin of guilt comes from violating universal principles of right and wrong!. In most instances, people who believe this also acknowledge that, even though there is proper guilt from doing 'wrong' instead of doing 'right,' people endure all sorts of guilty feelings that don't stem from violating universal moral principles!.
Yours Sincerly
Billy TownsendWww@Answer-Health@Com