Philosophy In Action All the ideas and discussions
74 votes Vote

Is "addiction" a valid concept?

Is there truly such a thing as addiction to a drug or chemical? I understand that taking drugs like heroin can change the physiology such that it's unpleasant to quit. But if a narcotic addict (or alcoholic) really wants to quit, it seems that the real obstacle is changing one's lifestyle and breaking a bunch of bad habits -- not just getting chemically "clean." Similarly, can a person be addicted to certain foods such as sugar or wheat, or it is merely just a lack of willpower? Finally, some people claim to be "addicted" to gambling or the internet. Is that true? Is there any merit to the notion of an "addiction-prone personality"?

Anonymous , 05.11.2011, 21:54
Idea status: completed

Comments

KellyAnn, 31.12.2011, 15:59
These are medical, not philosophical questions. If you don't "believe in addiction" you're rejecting science. The notion of "addiction-prone personalities" has an empirical basis as well. I wouldn't personally say that this makes us slaves to our body, but we are still chemical creatures.

This reminds me of a great t-shirt I once saw that read "Serotonin and Endorphin: Technically the only two things you really enjoy" ;).

I think we all have a choice to take control over our own lives. But addiction is a very real and very powerful thing. Take the case of benzodiazepams like Xanax or Valium. You could say the person addicted lacks willpower. But acute withdrawal can cause death up to 30% of the time. That's more than just "unpleasant to quit".
Reply
asdalton, 28.01.2012, 16:04
Well, "addiction" can be delimited to the point that it is a purely medical question. The problem is that you see it today applied to all sorts of behaviors not related to drug abuse. When an ever-growing list of self-destructive or socially disapproved behaviors become labeled "addictions," then the label is intruding upon the domain of philosophy (e.g., concept formation), and philosophy should have a say.
Reply
Sarah Jane Smith, 13.03.2012, 22:15
In my non medical profession opinion, an addiction is the type of thing that you need handcuffs and/or methadone to recover from. The severe chemical F***-All that has occurred is too great for a meager substance as will power.

From what I recall in my school days, the chemical addition to nicotine was expired in a few days. But the habitual aspect tended to remain.

Withdrawing from alcohol can be anything from a couple moody days to life threatening DT's.

It doesn't help that humans tend to have individual chemistry. I can't tolerate Gluten Proteins, but maybe you can. Maybe John Doe's brain can't resist reward complex as easily as you or I.

I like the idea that willpower is like a glass of water. If you've just crossed the desert, that water is gone quick. If you just took a bath, maybe you'll sip at it through the day. Too bad the desert and the bath can't be reduced to a simple formula.
Reply
Tjitze de Boer, 27.05.2012, 05:43
I misread this as "Is addition a valid concept?" and was rather puzzled for a few moments.
Reply
Michael Finley, 08.08.2012, 09:42
Another point to consider is the difference in usage of terms in the legal arena.

Any psychiatrist of psychologist call tell you, if he or she has to go to court and talk about addiction, it can make a huge difference is she says drug "dependency," versus drug "abuse."
Reply
Chris, 28.08.2012, 02:18
The concept of "addiction" has been expanded from what was probably at one time narrowly and medically defined to now being applied to any habitual behavior that is self destructive. I.e. TV addiction or internet addiction, or gambling addiction. It suggests that people who "suffer" these and similar "addictions" are not in control and therefore not responsible for their behavior. A companion concept to "addiction" is "compulsion". It seems to me that all of this ultimately winds up in the arena of free will.

I like some of Sam Harris' work on theism and rational ethics, but when he concludes that modern neurological research demonstrates that free will doesn't exist I am stumped. To me it is meaningless to talk about reason and rationality in a context where free will doesn't exist.
Reply

Leave a comment