My topic du jour is psychiatric overdiagnoses.
One Brow says man is a social animal. . . . ultimately denies anything more than chemistry as essential to life. . . . well, let's say "chemistry" in the context of the grander expanses of time, space, energy and matter I suppose. But what I think he has been preaching is a denial that there is anything else that we can't prove or demonstrate objectively to the most hardened believer in "man". That meaning, of course, to exclude "God" or similar extrapolations into the vast unknown realms we have so far just waved our hands at and declared "I believe"s about.
So what is the distinction between man the social animal and the clinical diagnosis of a sociopath?
Yeah he "intellectualize" everything. That's the problem I have with him. I don't think we can always "think through" everything. I do believe our mental capacity is limited in some sense.
Take for example a cat. Can it ever fully understand us? No. It lives in its own world, knows what it knows, (like there is food in the tray), but it doesn't know how that food came to be.
We as human knows about the Universe. But we don't know how it came to be. At least I'm open to the possibility that I don't know everything and that I do lack the mental capacity to think through things...