The Second Sin

by Thomas Szasz

If, as the Old Testament tells us, the First or Original Sin was the knowledge of good and evil, then the knowledge of clear speech was the “Second Sin,” At Babel, God punished man for this transgression with the Divine Confusion, and we have been misleading each other ever since. Dr. Thomas Szasz believes that it is this confusion of language that has produced much of the inhumanity, intolerance, and outright stupidity which today affect everything from our politics to our sex lives. This is Dr. Szasz’s effort to dispel some of this confusion. It is a collection of penetrating, fresh, and often humorous thoughts, ranging from sex and the family to drugs, schizophrenia, and psychiatry. For example, Dr. Szasz points out that when a person acts as if he were speaking to God we say he is praying, but when he acts as if God were speaking to him we say he has “schizophrenia” — and we look to medical science to “cure” him of his “mental illness.” Other excerpts from the Second Formerly, Americans charges with murder were considered innocent until proven guilty; now they are considered insane until proven sane. the primary sexual activity of mankind. In the nineteenth century, it was a disease; in the twentieth, it is a cure. Treating addiction to heroin with methadone is like treating addiction to Scotch with Bourbon.

Genres: Psychology, Nonfiction

121 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1973

About the author

Thomas Stephen Szasz (pronounced /sas/; born April 15, 1920 in Budapest, Hungary) was a psychiatrist and academic. He was Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at the State University of New York Health Science Center in Syracuse, New York. He was a prominent figure in the antipsychiatry movement, a well-known social critic of the moral and scientific foundations of psychiatry, and of the social control aims of medicine in modern society, as well as of scientism. He is well known for his books, The Myth of Mental Illness (1960) and The Manufacture of Madness: A Comparative Study of the Inquisition and the Mental Health Movement which set out some of the arguments with which he is most associated.

Reviews

[Skallagrimsen]

Whether it emanates from ancient priesthoods, modern psychologists, or post modern philosophers, convoluted language serves the opposite of the nominal function of speech. The purpose of such language is not to convey meaning. It is to confuse the uninitiated with a façade of of profundity and to browbeat them into acquiescence or submission. The motive of convoluted language is not to communicate, but to intimidate. It is a tool of power. So argues Thomas Szasz in The Second Sin. He offers this short book of clear aphorisms, on this and other subjects, as a remedy to the moral problem of murky language.

The title derives from Genesis. Mankind's first, or "original" sin was, of course, to eat the forbidden fruit of knowledge. For this, God expelled them from garden of Eden and condemned them to lives of servitude and suffering. However, less well remarked upon is mankind's "second sin." This sin consisted building the Tower of Babel up to heaven to rival the majesty of God. God punished man for this hubris by garbling his speech, preventing men from communicating well enough for another such a collective endeavor. "The second sin," then, is clear language. (Strictly speaking, this would seem to be at least man's third sin, after the murder of Abel by Cain, but let's not quibble.) Szasz suggests that God, the ultimate authority figure, fears clarity, as He fears knowledge, as a threat to His power. Priesthoods, past or present, religious or secular, are beset by the same fears, for the same reasons. They cannot help but emulate His example. Clear speech is the natural enemy of tyranny.

I strongly endorse the thesis of The Second Sin. I found some artistry and insight its pages. Thomas Szasz, a psychiatrist who critiqued psychiatry as coercive superstition, was an interesting contrarian figure. Upon rereading it a couple years ago, however, I had to conclude The Second Sin was a rather slight effort. I just didn't think it rose to the challenge of its central premise. I love the aphorism as a literary form. But the theme here begs for a fuller examination. Maybe I held on to my copy for its witty cover illustration by Edward Gorey.

Arthur Schopenhauer said it earlier and better anyway:

"[E]very true thinker endeavors to express his thoughts as purely, clearly, definitely, and concisely as ever possible. This is why simplicity has always been looked upon as a token, not only of truth, but also of genius. Style receives its beauty from the thought expressed, while with those writers who only pretend to think it is their thoughts that are said to be fine because of their style. Style is merely the silhouette of thought; and to write in a vague or bad style means a stupid or confused mind."

[Ramon4 · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love this book. This is a little book of maximums and quotes by Dr. Szasz. If you don't know Dr. Szasz, he is a psychiatrist who hates psychiatry. More correctly, he objects to the medical model that underpins psychiatry. He believes that this error in it's basic assumptions has lead to bad consequences and blind alleys. His most famous book is called 'The Myth of Mental Illness.'

This concern with using a 'wrong model' has lead Dr. Szasz to look at language, and in this book of maximums are his thoughts on how we use language to define and color our moral judgments. It's kind of an expansion of the old proverb, 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander.'

For instance, Dr. Szasz notes that we say 'policemen receive bribes,' but we say 'politicians receive campaign contributions.' Why the difference? Why do we say, 'tobacco is sold by merchants,' but 'marijuana is sold by pushers.' When we don't like a TV program, we wouldn't call a TV repair man. Why then, when we don't like the way a person behaves, do we call a medical psychiatrist?

The best way to get a feel for this book is just to read the preface and learn how the doctor came up with the title of this book. He says, "we all know what is the first or "original" sin: eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But we have tended to forget what the second sin was: Speaking clearly." In the first sin, God wished to prohibit man from knowing the difference between good and evil, and consequently Man could not make moral judgments. The knowledge of good and evil was the providence of only God. But man went against God's command, and by eating the fruit, became aware of something only God was meant aware of, the difference between good and evil. As a result, God punished man, and drove him out of the Garden.

The second sin occurred during the construction of the tower of Babble. At that time, all men spoke only one language, and because there was only one language, men could be clear with one another, and there was no limit to what they could accomplish; they could build a tower to the Heavens if they desired. But again, Man encroached on the providence of God: Thinking and Speaking clearly. God came down and punished Man by confusing his language and thereby confusing his thought process. That is why today, Man is enjoined to follow the law, and not worry about the details, they 'why's' and 'wherefore's.'

But all men are sinners. If a man is to be a man, it is his nature to question Authority, to make judgments, to wonder what is really good and what is really evil. It is Man's nature to attempt to think and speak clearly. But it has always been the goal of Authority to prevent Man from doing these things for himself without obtaining permission. In early history, it was the Church that demanded that Man not question Church wisdom. Then it was the Government state that demanded Man not questions the decrees of the state. Today, it the medical psychiatrists who seek to control us by confusing out thinking. Authorities have always tended to honor and reward those who close man's mind by confusing his tongue, and have always tended to fear and punish those who open it by the plain and proper use of language.

Every age has it's high priests who seek to control us by debasing out language and confusing us. And every age has the iconoclasts who cry out that the Emperor has no clothes, and we are being bamboozled. Dr. Szasz sees himself in the latter category, with men like Voltaire, Bierce and Mencken.

This book is out-of-print, but is not difficult to find.

[C.M. Arnold · Rating 4 out of 5]

What a surprisingly interesting little book. This was left on the "free cart" at my library and I was enticed by the strange cover that is sadly not available on Goodreads. Normally, I don't find myself relating much to books written by men in the seventies about their ideas on marriage, sex, and social topics. However, this book called for the pen. I found myself nodding in agreement and underlining sentences left and right. Someone should probably incorporate this into a college class or something. The part on marriage is humorous in the fact that it is so glaringly true (often), and the fact that many are so completely oblivious to this said truth. The love section is summed up succinctly. The sections of significance, justification, and classification are informative and pertinent. The section on language is particularly eye opening, because wording is everything. I don't know if this book resonated with me so much because I'm a realist, and I feel that the author is too, but I really felt much of what he had to say. It might also be because I'm fond of the cynical. I will say, however, that I do disagree with his stance on mental illness. I believe mental illnesses are real illnesses that can be contributed to chemical imbalances, genetics, trauma, ect. I believe you can inherit bipolar disorder just as easily as you can diabetes, and that you can come develop panic disorder like you can develop cancer. I get the gist that the author thinks most mental maladies are either contrived from power hungry psychiatrists who just want to put a name on something and push some anti-depressants, or are more or less the excuses some people chalk their inadequate attributes up to in order to get sympathy and such. Are there people walking around right now claiming one mental illness or another that are not really mentally ill? Yes. Are we in a time (more so now then then) were mental illnesses are somewhat romanticized? Kind of. But if making mental illnesses household topics helps brings someone who is hiding theirs to terms with it...then I consider it worth it. You can't go around invalidating people's feelings and issues. And yes, some people do need to be committed. And yes, sometimes that means involuntarily. Other than those few points, I agree with almost everything this man has to say about everything.

It really brings to light the lies we tell ourselves, the lies other people tells us, and the cardinal sentiments we've been per-programmed to believe through the centuries.

[Angeles G. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Szasz nos escribe sobre su punto de vista (critica) con respecto a la psiquiatría, la sociedad, las leyes, ciertas profesiones, la moral, entre otras cosas. Hay párrafos que te hacen pensar "wow, cuanta razón tiene" o "nunca lo había visto de esa manera" así como hay otras cosas que te dejan con el pensamiento de "este señor tiene un complejo de Dios demasiado marcado".

Era un hombre liberalista y eso me gusta. Es un buen libro, fácil de leer y corto.

[Nicholas Holden · Rating 3 out of 5]

Honestly, its horrifying how modern this book feels. S0 much industry resentment against psychology and psychiatry, it got a bit monotonous. Once you read his first few aphorisms about mental illness and psychology practitioners you have pretty much read them all.

[Steve Gutin · Rating 5 out of 5]

great brief notes and aphorisms

[John Fredrickson · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found this book to be a strange mix of aphorisms. Some of them seemed absolutely brilliant, but many of them just left me scratching my head.

[Jessada Karnjana · Rating 5 out of 5]

หนังสือเล่มเล็ก ๆ เป็นเหมือนข้อสังเกตในประเด็นต่าง ๆ ที่ Thomas Szasz หยิบมาพูดกับคนอ่าน เช่น ความเป็นเด็ก ครอบครัว ความรัก เพศ การศึกษา การแพทย์ การฆ่าตัวตาย ฯลฯ บางข้อสังเกตก็สั้นครับ ประโยคเดียวจบ ยาวสุดก็ไม่เกินหนึ่งหน้า Szasz เป็นโปรเฟสเซอร์ทางจิตวิทยาที่โด่งดังจากการเสนอแนวคิดว่าอาการป่วยทางจิตไม่ได้เป็นสถานะที่มีอยู่จริงในธรรมชาติในบทความและหนังสือ The Myth of Mental Illness ซึ่งก็ตีพิมพ์ไล่เลี่ยกับ Madness and Civilization ของฟูโกต์ แต่มันฟังดูดุเดือดกว่าเพราะคนพูดเป็นจิตแพทย์ไม่ใช่นักประวัติศาสตร์ สำหรับในเล่มนี้ แม้ว่า Szasz จะพูดถึงหลายเรื่องมาก แต่แก่นความคิดหลักของทุกเรื่องเหมือนกัน คือ ความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างผู้นิยามกับผู้ถูกนิยาม ข้อสังเกตหลายข้อคมคาย ลึกซึ้ง ท้าทายต่อคติ ธรรมเนียม และวัฒนธรรมที่สังคมพยายามจะนิยามบางคนในสังคม มันจึงทำให้เกิดข้อโต้แย้งถกเถียงได้ทุกประเด็น ไม่ใช่แค่คำพูดเด็ด ๆ ที่เน้นความประทับใจอย่างเดียวนะครับ บางข้อสังเกต (ส่วนน้อย) ที่ดูเหมือนคำคมสอนใจ หรือเน้นความเป็นเตือนใจก็มี

ตอนอ่านเล่มนี้ ผมเลือกแปลบางประโยคลง fb จนมีน้องถามว่า The Second Sin คืออะไร? โปรเฟสเซอร์ Szasz บอกว่าส่วนใหญ่เรารู้จัก The First Sin หรือ Original Sin ว่าคืออะไร ความรู้เกี่ย��กับความดีและความชั่ว (the knowledge of good and evil) จากผลแอปเปิ้ลที่พระเจ้าห้ามก็ไม่กินนั่นแหละ ครั้งนั้นมนุษย์คู่หนึ่งถูกลงโทษพร้อมคำสาปแช่งอย่างหนักหนาสาหัส และครั้งต่อมาที่ถูกลงโทษรุนแรงอีกหนคือความเหิมเกริมของเราที่บังอาจสร้างหอคอยสูงสู่สวรรค์ ถ้าถามว่าอะไรทำให้มนุษย์ทำอย่างนั้นได้ อันที่จริงก็ไม่ใช่กฎฟิสิกส์หรือความรู้ทางวิศวกรรมหรอกครับ คุณคงรู้ว่าพระเจ้าขัดขวางความโอหังดังกล่าวด้วยการทำให้มนุษย์พูดกันไม่รู้เรื่อง การพูดกันรู้เรื่อง (speaking clearly) นี่แหละ ที่ Szasz เรียกว่า The Second Sin

[Reinhardt · Rating 5 out of 5]

A witty, humorous critic of psychiatry.

Set as a series of sharp aphorism or at the longest, a paragraph, Szasz undermines the modern practice of psychiatry. One of his basic premises is there is no such thing as mental illness. His harshest critiques is reserved for the involuntary use of psychiatry.

Nearly all of them contain some insight, some are worth pondering, for example, ‘there is no psychology, only biography and autobiography.’ Hmmm.

He sets his guns on anything he sees as irrational. No doubt every camps can feel offended by at least one of this thoughts. There are no sacred cows here.

Many of his critiques are valid 50 years later and in fact, much of the book is timely with its examination of the use and abuse of language to shape societies and the blending of science and state power into a new religion of coercive scientism.

His thoughts are insightful and delightfully phrased. But one can deduce from this book that he is a libertarian, a perfectly valid point of view, but which seems to have a fatal flaw. There is always the idea that one can rebuild society on purely rational grounds. A ‘year 0’ to rebuild everything by reason alone. You can see in some of his thoughts, this weakness is evident.

On the whole, enlightening, entertaining. Well worth the read.

[V · Rating 5 out of 5]

The aphorisms were great.

I'm still divided on whether I should regard the approach towards mental illness portrayed here as a gimmick to generate controversy, a la Jordan Peterson.

However, the character and mentality of Mr. Szasz seems to be impeccable, and I will better be able to assess this once he portrays his alternative in "The Myth of Mental Illness".

Fundamentally a fresh outlook on things, and a highly appreciated one.

[asma · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting outlook on everyday ideologies that affect us psychologically. Logical and thought provoking