|
For example, let's take Ken Lay.
Ken Lay was most likely a narcissist. Now his narcissism was not by any means, his own fault. Object relations theory (or whatever) would trace the etiology to improper maternal attachment and such.
Now given his narcissism, and lack of aesthetic attractiveness to other humans, what choice does he really have? He must reconcile his conflicting sense of entitlment and physical humilation with the only status symbol remaining for ugly old white men; money. Thus, Enron goes it's natural way.
I don't mean to be simplistic, but it can be useful to use him as a symbolic point. You may chose others.
Nonetheless, I have no doubt, that Ken Lay suffered internally more than the vast majority of humans. Unable to love, unable to connect, ultimately empty, he died having never experienced true joy.
When liberals fight for the advocacy of the mentally ill who are prosecuted for crimes commited while psychotic...I do not believe they follow through with the full trajectory needed.
We see schizophrenia as a reasonable means to remove blame from someone. Why not narcissism? Why the arbritrary line in the sand between different psychopathologies? Why not antisocial personality disorder?
Ultimately, the brain is an organ, much like the pancreas. If the pancreas can not produce insulin, we view the individual as sick. Blaming a brain that can not produce empathy, is much like cursing the diabetic who is ill.
George Bush, Dick Cheney, etc.. all mentally ill individuals who suffer greatly.
Is it intellectually honest to curse at them? Perhaps more humane would be to assess the social pathology of culture that breeds such mental ills (or the selfish nature of all organisms in general?)
I don't mean to sound haughty or arrogant in this post, especially with my low post count; and I realize my thoughts are not very complex or well formed.
Just interested in a discussion of this.
|