Do you agree with the author on this statement?

[Sushan]

In extremes, anything can be a mental disorder. But not everything that are extreme categorized as mental disorders. And that is why specific mental disorders are given specific diagnostic criteria. Otherwise a man's personality trait will be named as a psychiatric disorder. This is similar for the meanings of the words. Yes, their meanings can be changed. But technical terms are not subjected for change of the meaning because it will definitely harm the practices that use those words in a technical way. And also naming religious beliefs as delusions is quite Narcistic, which is a personality trait as well.

And your point is what....?

Parmaceuticals are in the business of inventing mental illnesses, and exporting them as ideas to poorer countries and emerging markets.
They call it exporting a category. India was the recent reciepent of such an export in the matter of "depression" - a category previously unheard of in times past. Now it is highly fashionable to obtain various kinds of anteprepressants, which Pharma have been only too happy to supply by the ship load.

Back on topic. Religion is much the same; it validates a system of bad thinking, making okay to ignore reason and accept faith as an alternative.

You aren't trying to imply that India is immune to depression, are you?

I am suggesting the possibility that once upun a time people got sad for specific reasons. Now they no longer try to understand those reasons when they can reach for a pill.
Humans managed for 100,000 years without obsessing over this and many other categories.
WHy reflect upon how to improve your life when you can just drop a Valium.
I get depressed. I take steps to improve. I do not make a fetish out of my illness, and get on with things without the "help" (ahem!) of drugs.

Seemingly you are mixing up the illness which is called 'Depression' with the commonly used term of 'depression' when people say "I am depressed". It is easy for one to say that one is depressed when they are too sad and feel like they have no energy to anything. But there is an actual psychiatric illness which is called 'Depression', which has a specific diagnostic criteria and specific drugs to treat. Better not to mix up the two unless you want to worsen the condition of someone who is in actual need of help.

[Sushan]

And your point is what....?

Parmaceuticals are in the business of inventing mental illnesses, and exporting them as ideas to poorer countries and emerging markets.
They call it exporting a category. India was the recent reciepent of such an export in the matter of "depression" - a category previously unheard of in times past. Now it is highly fashionable to obtain various kinds of anteprepressants, which Pharma have been only too happy to supply by the ship load.

Back on topic. Religion is much the same; it validates a system of bad thinking, making okay to ignore reason and accept faith as an alternative.

You aren't trying to imply that India is immune to depression, are you?

I am suggesting the possibility that once upun a time people got sad for specific reasons. Now they no longer try to understand those reasons when they can reach for a pill.
Humans managed for 100,000 years without obsessing over this and many other categories.
WHy reflect upon how to improve your life when you can just drop a Valium.
I get depressed. I take steps to improve. I do not make a fetish out of my illness, and get on with things without the "help" (ahem!) of drugs.

You seem to be confusing sadness (typically caused by negative life events) with depression (caused by neurotransmitter imbalance in the brain).

Well said. There is a clear demarcation between day to day mental states and psychiatric illnesses, though it is quite difficult to exactly separate one from the other. That is why anyone who is exceptionally sad has to be carefully evaluated to see whether it is an illness or not. There are situations when it is an illness, but can be cured without any medications but by other means as counselling. But for the pathologies at the level of brain, then the drugs has to be used appropriately.

[LuckyR]

You aren't trying to imply that India is immune to depression, are you?

I am suggesting the possibility that once upun a time people got sad for specific reasons. Now they no longer try to understand those reasons when they can reach for a pill.
Humans managed for 100,000 years without obsessing over this and many other categories.
WHy reflect upon how to improve your life when you can just drop a Valium.
I get depressed. I take steps to improve. I do not make a fetish out of my illness, and get on with things without the "help" (ahem!) of drugs.

You seem to be confusing sadness (typically caused by negative life events) with depression (caused by neurotransmitter imbalance in the brain).

Well said. There is a clear demarcation between day to day mental states and psychiatric illnesses, though it is quite difficult to exactly separate one from the other. That is why anyone who is exceptionally sad has to be carefully evaluated to see whether it is an illness or not. There are situations when it is an illness, but can be cured without any medications but by other means as counselling. But for the pathologies at the level of brain, then the drugs has to be used appropriately.

Correct. While Sculptor is correct that the two are often conflated intentionally by companies seeking to make more drug sales, that doesn't therefore negate the field of psychiatry.

[Sushan]

Hi mystery,

Thank you for your valuable opinion.

You have a valid point. One can adopt what Jesus did as a human to one's lifestyle and that will impact all activities related to his life. But given the life that Jesus led and how he ended up, will it be healthy for a person at present to fully adopt to His lifestyle?

I will love to hear other opinions on this also.

I don't think so, I wish that it would be, and not in a way that many have build systems around his memory but in a way to truly follow the same ideals he did. The only way that makes sense is if it was tied to the eternal as is his promise. Otherwise no, the truth of human nature is that the strong take all and decide what is allowed to the less strong. Following Jesus is a path to evolutionary removal. Reward in heaven perhaps, on earth, no. Biological selection will reward the strong, not the just. It is what it is.

Biological selection and the strong one winning are things that we have experienced throughout the history and we are experiencing that today as well. But, has anyone seen heaven or has experienced spiritual development other than being heard of someone else's sayings? In such a background, is it wise to take a step away from evolution and go after an unknown, unseen heaven and a spiritual development giving up all the mundane comforts?

We agree on the power and reality of biology. Albeit it is often shrouded, with some effort it can be readily understood and managed.

If we saw heaven and told about it who will believe, for sure not the people that know us well.

Objectively heaven is the greatest tool to manage others. Simply teach them that competing and winning is bad/shameful. Sacrifice our natural desires now and get a reward later when dead. It is the perfect tool, no one can ever tell it is not true without question and shame. It is easier to back away from competition and go with a promise that hiding strength will be rewarded. At the same time the strong rule without challenge.

If life and time is without limits, then yes to explore every possibility is with merit. As it is we must choose and can not try all choices.

If we could somehow convince everyone else to not compete with us, we will be assured of success in all areas. psychological warfare.

Without religion and morality, every man wants to be king. Is life better with religion, yes it is, for the king.

Religion knows this, it is why all religions include a concept of marriage. Getting control of biology is the real root of power.

perhaps I over answer and am rambling.

Heaven is a good concept as a tool to control human behaviour, so as the concept of Hell. But if these concepts were that much strong, and many were not willing to not accept them out of fear for being shamed in front of the society, today's society should have been a perfect one with no crimes but all the good deeds. But as we see, such a state is not achieved even though we have so many rules and regulations. Seemingly the religious concepts are not much accepted in the current world.

[Sushan]

You aren't trying to imply that India is immune to depression, are you?

I am suggesting the possibility that once upun a time people got sad for specific reasons. Now they no longer try to understand those reasons when they can reach for a pill.
Humans managed for 100,000 years without obsessing over this and many other categories.
WHy reflect upon how to improve your life when you can just drop a Valium.
I get depressed. I take steps to improve. I do not make a fetish out of my illness, and get on with things without the "help" (ahem!) of drugs.

You seem to be confusing sadness (typically caused by negative life events) with depression (caused by neurotransmitter imbalance in the brain).

Sadness is the same as the brain state that identifies it, as is happiness; and hat people like to call depression , or elation is also characterised by neurological states.
So you are making an absurd distinction.
I'm not saying that mental illness is not a thing, I am suggesting that the drugs availiable for it tend to define the categories rather than the other way round.
"Mental Illness" is a very recent category and has been mobilised to crush difference and dissent. Activities outside the norm are the focus of scorn and attract oppression. China is an extreme example, but in the not too distant past we have the same sort of thing in the West, and there are still "cures" for homosexuality and other form s of deviancy.

I am not aware of any treatment for homosexuality in modern day medicine. But I believe that such things are possible in various tribal levels. Sexual attraction towards same sex or opposite sex is found to be in a range, and one of its extreme is called homosexuality. It is a condition, but not an illness.

Yes, there was an era when unusual ones were shamed labelling them as 'lunatics'. Such behaviours can be identified in any society. But with the medical as well as ethical development of the world, the psychiatric illnesses are given specific diagnostic criteria and such patients are given the necessary help. Still we see that people call people with unusual or unique behaviours 'lunatics'. Some people or societies never change.

[Sushan]

You seem to be confusing sadness (typically caused by negative life events) with depression (caused by neurotransmitter imbalance in the brain).

Sadness is the same as the brain state that identifies it, as is happiness; and hat people like to call depression , or elation is also characterised by neurological states.
So you are making an absurd distinction.
I'm not saying that mental illness is not a thing, I am suggesting that the drugs availiable for it tend to define the categories rather than the other way round.
"Mental Illness" is a very recent category and has been mobilised to crush difference and dissent. Activities outside the norm are the focus of scorn and attract oppression. China is an extreme example, but in the not too distant past we have the same sort of thing in the West, and there are still "cures" for homosexuality and other form s of deviancy.

I assume, since you report acceptance of the existence of mental illness, that you do get that those with clinical depression don't need to have a negative life event to feel depressed, right?

Mostly the depression has a trigger. Bipolarity does seem cyclic but that can is not without triggers too. I'm no expert but from what I gather the downs can be a direct response to letting yourself engage too fully in the highs, as if there is a limited store of optimism that gets used up, ready for a rest which is the low. Despite the stuff about neurochemical no one really understands it, as much as they pretend they do. Diagnosis is basically via behaviour, and since that behaviour is a brain state there is a potential for false dualistic refections on cause and effect. Bipolar is fairly easy treated with Lithium.
There are far more complex problems. My brother has had shizophrenia for 40 years. So it is not like I do not know something about this. Myself and my son have depression, but prescription drugs are not a solution anymore than alcohol or pot is.

I don't disagree that drug companies are interested in maximizing profit and thus seek to blur the lines between sadness and depression. Similarly others with agendas (politicians, lawyers, activists etc) have tried to gloss over the difference between normal and abnormal moods.

I get that you have some first hand experience related to Schizophrenia and Depression, and may have lost any faith in medicine. But are you suggesting that none of the today's medicine can help people with psychiatric illnesses?

Depression can have a trigger, as it is said that it has a social component as well as a genetic component. But Schizophrenia is different. It is said that it has nearly a 70% genetic component. In such a scenario, can it still be cured by finding and treating a social trigger?

[Sushan]

I assume, since you report acceptance of the existence of mental illness, that you do get that those with clinical depression don't need to have a negative life event to feel depressed, right?

Mostly the depression has a trigger. Bipolarity does seem cyclic but that can is not without triggers too. I'm no expert but from what I gather the downs can be a direct response to letting yourself engage too fully in the highs, as if there is a limited store of optimism that gets used up, ready for a rest which is the low. Despite the stuff about neurochemical no one really understands it, as much as they pretend they do. Diagnosis is basically via behaviour, and since that behaviour is a brain state there is a potential for false dualistic refections on cause and effect. Bipolar is fairly easy treated with Lithium.
There are far more complex problems. My brother has had shizophrenia for 40 years. So it is not like I do not know something about this. Myself and my son have depression, but prescription drugs are not a solution anymore than alcohol or pot is.

I don't disagree that drug companies are interested in maximizing profit and thus seek to blur the lines between sadness and depression. Similarly others with agendas (politicians, lawyers, activists etc) have tried to gloss over the difference between normal and abnormal moods.

Anti-depressants are not a cure, that's true. Of course insulin is not an the cure for type 1 diabetes. It is a temporary symptom reliever. In fact just about all chronic diseases are not curable (by definition).

A very poor analogy. For two reasons.

1) You can live without any psychoactive drugs, depressants and other offerings that screw with your head. No one can live without insulin, and if you are type 1 diabetic you die if you do not take it.

2) Insulin is not comparable since it specifically and directly targets a missing facor in the blood which it directly replaces. This may not be said of ANY psychoactive drug. And in many cases they can have serious effects which have nothing whatever to do with solving a problem.

There is a third reason which applies to many not all cases of mental illness; that many are not chronic.

Psychiatric illnesses are not chronic, but they are cyclic. They recur in a cyclical manner, in most cases with similar symptoms in the same order, like a pattern. But the sad thing about this recurrence is the damage that it does to the brain in each and every recurrence. It is like stepping down a staircase. Each and every time you get your illness, the state of the brain lowers. When you control the illness with medication, your brain won't climb up to its previous state, but it will remain at the lower stair. So more recurrences means more deterioration and if you can imagine that, it will lead you to a far more horrific state than death.

[Sculptor1]

And your point is what....?

Parmaceuticals are in the business of inventing mental illnesses, and exporting them as ideas to poorer countries and emerging markets.
They call it exporting a category. India was the recent reciepent of such an export in the matter of "depression" - a category previously unheard of in times past. Now it is highly fashionable to obtain various kinds of anteprepressants, which Pharma have been only too happy to supply by the ship load.

Back on topic. Religion is much the same; it validates a system of bad thinking, making okay to ignore reason and accept faith as an alternative.

You aren't trying to imply that India is immune to depression, are you?

I am suggesting the possibility that once upun a time people got sad for specific reasons. Now they no longer try to understand those reasons when they can reach for a pill.
Humans managed for 100,000 years without obsessing over this and many other categories.
WHy reflect upon how to improve your life when you can just drop a Valium.
I get depressed. I take steps to improve. I do not make a fetish out of my illness, and get on with things without the "help" (ahem!) of drugs.

Seemingly you are mixing up the illness which is called 'Depression' with the commonly used term of 'depression' when people say "I am depressed". It is easy for one to say that one is depressed when they are too sad and feel like they have no energy to anything. But there is an actual psychiatric illness which is called 'Depression', which has a specific diagnostic criteria and specific drugs to treat. Better not to mix up the two unless you want to worsen the condition of someone who is in actual need of help.

Tut tut.
No it is YOU that is confused

[Sculptor1]

Mostly the depression has a trigger. Bipolarity does seem cyclic but that can is not without triggers too. I'm no expert but from what I gather the downs can be a direct response to letting yourself engage too fully in the highs, as if there is a limited store of optimism that gets used up, ready for a rest which is the low. Despite the stuff about neurochemical no one really understands it, as much as they pretend they do. Diagnosis is basically via behaviour, and since that behaviour is a brain state there is a potential for false dualistic refections on cause and effect. Bipolar is fairly easy treated with Lithium.
There are far more complex problems. My brother has had shizophrenia for 40 years. So it is not like I do not know something about this. Myself and my son have depression, but prescription drugs are not a solution anymore than alcohol or pot is.

Anti-depressants are not a cure, that's true. Of course insulin is not an the cure for type 1 diabetes. It is a temporary symptom reliever. In fact just about all chronic diseases are not curable (by definition).

A very poor analogy. For two reasons.

1) You can live without any psychoactive drugs, depressants and other offerings that screw with your head. No one can live without insulin, and if you are type 1 diabetic you die if you do not take it.

2) Insulin is not comparable since it specifically and directly targets a missing facor in the blood which it directly replaces. This may not be said of ANY psychoactive drug. And in many cases they can have serious effects which have nothing whatever to do with solving a problem.

There is a third reason which applies to many not all cases of mental illness; that many are not chronic.

Psychiatric illnesses are not chronic, but they are cyclic.

All cyclic illnesses are by definition chronic. You are operating with a category error.
All apples are fruit, not all fruit are apples.
tut tut

[Sculptor1]

Sadness is the same as the brain state that identifies it, as is happiness; and hat people like to call depression , or elation is also characterised by neurological states.
So you are making an absurd distinction.
I'm not saying that mental illness is not a thing, I am suggesting that the drugs availiable for it tend to define the categories rather than the other way round.
"Mental Illness" is a very recent category and has been mobilised to crush difference and dissent. Activities outside the norm are the focus of scorn and attract oppression. China is an extreme example, but in the not too distant past we have the same sort of thing in the West, and there are still "cures" for homosexuality and other form s of deviancy.

I assume, since you report acceptance of the existence of mental illness, that you do get that those with clinical depression don't need to have a negative life event to feel depressed, right?

Mostly the depression has a trigger. Bipolarity does seem cyclic but that can is not without triggers too. I'm no expert but from what I gather the downs can be a direct response to letting yourself engage too fully in the highs, as if there is a limited store of optimism that gets used up, ready for a rest which is the low. Despite the stuff about neurochemical no one really understands it, as much as they pretend they do. Diagnosis is basically via behaviour, and since that behaviour is a brain state there is a potential for false dualistic refections on cause and effect. Bipolar is fairly easy treated with Lithium.
There are far more complex problems. My brother has had shizophrenia for 40 years. So it is not like I do not know something about this. Myself and my son have depression, but prescription drugs are not a solution anymore than alcohol or pot is.

I don't disagree that drug companies are interested in maximizing profit and thus seek to blur the lines between sadness and depression. Similarly others with agendas (politicians, lawyers, activists etc) have tried to gloss over the difference between normal and abnormal moods.

I get that you have some first hand experience related to Schizophrenia and Depression, and may have lost any faith in medicine. But are you suggesting that none of the today's medicine can help people with psychiatric illnesses?

Strawman. I never suggested that.
You seem desperate to criticise what I have said.
You might want to read more carefully.

[Sculptor1]

I am suggesting the possibility that once upun a time people got sad for specific reasons. Now they no longer try to understand those reasons when they can reach for a pill.
Humans managed for 100,000 years without obsessing over this and many other categories.
WHy reflect upon how to improve your life when you can just drop a Valium.
I get depressed. I take steps to improve. I do not make a fetish out of my illness, and get on with things without the "help" (ahem!) of drugs.

You seem to be confusing sadness (typically caused by negative life events) with depression (caused by neurotransmitter imbalance in the brain).

Sadness is the same as the brain state that identifies it, as is happiness; and hat people like to call depression , or elation is also characterised by neurological states.
So you are making an absurd distinction.
I'm not saying that mental illness is not a thing, I am suggesting that the drugs availiable for it tend to define the categories rather than the other way round.
"Mental Illness" is a very recent category and has been mobilised to crush difference and dissent. Activities outside the norm are the focus of scorn and attract oppression. China is an extreme example, but in the not too distant past we have the same sort of thing in the West, and there are still "cures" for homosexuality and other form s of deviancy.

I am not aware of any treatment for homosexuality in modern day medicine.

There are no valid ones not. But there are offered in the USA and many other European countries.

But I believe that such things are possible in various tribal levels.

Please cite.

Sexual attraction towards same sex or opposite sex is found to be in a range, and one of its extreme is called homosexuality. It is a condition, but not an illness.

I'd not call it a condition. I think many gays would find that very insulting.

Yes, there was an era when unusual ones were shamed labelling them as 'lunatics'. Such behaviours can be identified in any society. But with the medical as well as ethical development of the world, the psychiatric illnesses are given specific diagnostic criteria and such patients are given the necessary help. Still we see that people call people with unusual or unique behaviours 'lunatics'. Some people or societies never change.

And there are other situations in history where people were seen as "touched". Often the local seer, witch, hermit, shaman or holyman was the person we would now chose to denigrate as having a mental illness.

You might find a critical approach interesting.
Michel Foucault's, Madness and Civilisation is useful.

[Sculptor1]

Correct. While Sculptor is correct that the two are often conflated intentionally by companies seeking to make more drug sales, that doesn't therefore negate the field of psychiatry.

There is a great programme on BBC ATM, called The Psychodelic Drug Trial. It's run by the man who was sacked by the Labour government c.2008 for having the temerity to suggest that Ecstasy and Pot were less harmfull that alcohol and tobacco.
His vast experience in the field has led him to suggest an alternative treatment for chrinic depression; Psilocybin.
It's definitley worth a watch.
For my own part I certainly recognised the symptoms in the subjects trialed, where by useless and unresolvable thought cycle and get you no where but the brain in searching for a solution seems stuck in an infinite loop. I also was aware that episodes can be triggered by certain events unresolved.
My own experience with various illegal "recreational" drugs have been of great benifit. Magic mushrooms, in particular have allowed me to "re-set" my thinking. Ecstasy helped me be more congenial, and some years after taking them helped my find a lifetime partner, as it set me on a more positive pathway.
Cannabis has been more or less a mild intoxicant.
I've found none of these addictive, I have to say. And I do not know anyone who couldn't just say no to them. Alcohol and Nicotine, Crack, Cocaine, are all very addictive.

I'd not recommend any of the latter. But regard ecstsy and psilocybin as more or less harmless if take sensibly.

[mystery]

I will love to hear other opinions on this also.

I don't think so, I wish that it would be, and not in a way that many have build systems around his memory but in a way to truly follow the same ideals he did. The only way that makes sense is if it was tied to the eternal as is his promise. Otherwise no, the truth of human nature is that the strong take all and decide what is allowed to the less strong. Following Jesus is a path to evolutionary removal. Reward in heaven perhaps, on earth, no. Biological selection will reward the strong, not the just. It is what it is.

Biological selection and the strong one winning are things that we have experienced throughout the history and we are experiencing that today as well. But, has anyone seen heaven or has experienced spiritual development other than being heard of someone else's sayings? In such a background, is it wise to take a step away from evolution and go after an unknown, unseen heaven and a spiritual development giving up all the mundane comforts?

We agree on the power and reality of biology. Albeit it is often shrouded, with some effort it can be readily understood and managed.

If we saw heaven and told about it who will believe, for sure not the people that know us well.

Objectively heaven is the greatest tool to manage others. Simply teach them that competing and winning is bad/shameful. Sacrifice our natural desires now and get a reward later when dead. It is the perfect tool, no one can ever tell it is not true without question and shame. It is easier to back away from competition and go with a promise that hiding strength will be rewarded. At the same time the strong rule without challenge.

If life and time is without limits, then yes to explore every possibility is with merit. As it is we must choose and can not try all choices.

If we could somehow convince everyone else to not compete with us, we will be assured of success in all areas. psychological warfare.

Without religion and morality, every man wants to be king. Is life better with religion, yes it is, for the king.

Religion knows this, it is why all religions include a concept of marriage. Getting control of biology is the real root of power.

perhaps I over answer and am rambling.

Heaven is a good concept as a tool to control human behaviour, so as the concept of Hell. But if these concepts were that much strong, and many were not willing to not accept them out of fear for being shamed in front of the society, today's society should have been a perfect one with no crimes but all the good deeds. But as we see, such a state is not achieved even though we have so many rules and regulations. Seemingly the religious concepts are not much accepted in the current world.

You're right, as strong as it is, religion is but a speck in comparison to the power of mother nature and biology.

[Sushan]

Biological selection and the strong one winning are things that we have experienced throughout the history and we are experiencing that today as well. But, has anyone seen heaven or has experienced spiritual development other than being heard of someone else's sayings? In such a background, is it wise to take a step away from evolution and go after an unknown, unseen heaven and a spiritual development giving up all the mundane comforts?

We agree on the power and reality of biology. Albeit it is often shrouded, with some effort it can be readily understood and managed.

If we saw heaven and told about it who will believe, for sure not the people that know us well.

Objectively heaven is the greatest tool to manage others. Simply teach them that competing and winning is bad/shameful. Sacrifice our natural desires now and get a reward later when dead. It is the perfect tool, no one can ever tell it is not true without question and shame. It is easier to back away from competition and go with a promise that hiding strength will be rewarded. At the same time the strong rule without challenge.

If life and time is without limits, then yes to explore every possibility is with merit. As it is we must choose and can not try all choices.

If we could somehow convince everyone else to not compete with us, we will be assured of success in all areas. psychological warfare.

Without religion and morality, every man wants to be king. Is life better with religion, yes it is, for the king.

Religion knows this, it is why all religions include a concept of marriage. Getting control of biology is the real root of power.

perhaps I over answer and am rambling.

Heaven is a good concept as a tool to control human behaviour, so as the concept of Hell. But if these concepts were that much strong, and many were not willing to not accept them out of fear for being shamed in front of the society, today's society should have been a perfect one with no crimes but all the good deeds. But as we see, such a state is not achieved even though we have so many rules and regulations. Seemingly the religious concepts are not much accepted in the current world.

You're right, as strong as it is, religion is but a speck in comparison to the power of mother nature and biology.

Exactly. Religions and related concepts are man-made. But nature is not so and it is not even fully understood by humans so far. We have no idea why somethings happen but why somethings do not happen. As you also have mentioned in your previous post, its behaviour is not just. It allows the strongest to survive but remove the weak ones from the system. Still we call it 'mother nature'. Why do we call something so unjust a 'mother'? Or do we have a wrong concept with regard to the word 'mother'?

[Sushan]

You aren't trying to imply that India is immune to depression, are you?

I am suggesting the possibility that once upun a time people got sad for specific reasons. Now they no longer try to understand those reasons when they can reach for a pill.
Humans managed for 100,000 years without obsessing over this and many other categories.
WHy reflect upon how to improve your life when you can just drop a Valium.
I get depressed. I take steps to improve. I do not make a fetish out of my illness, and get on with things without the "help" (ahem!) of drugs.

Seemingly you are mixing up the illness which is called 'Depression' with the commonly used term of 'depression' when people say "I am depressed". It is easy for one to say that one is depressed when they are too sad and feel like they have no energy to anything. But there is an actual psychiatric illness which is called 'Depression', which has a specific diagnostic criteria and specific drugs to treat. Better not to mix up the two unless you want to worsen the condition of someone who is in actual need of help.

Tut tut.
No it is YOU that is confused

I really do not get it. How am I the one who is confused when you are clearly using a word which is used in clinical practice to diagnose or categorize a patient and determine a treatment, as a misnomer for a common mental condition of the feeling sad? There are technical terms which are used in this manner. They can be used in the common practice, but should not be confused with the technical terms.