ञेयं ज्ञाता गतिर्गन्ता मय्येकस्मिन् कुतो भवेत् ॥ न मे हेयं न चादेयमविकारी यतो ह्यहम् । सदा मुक्तस्तथा शुद्धः सदा बुद्धोऽगुणोऽद्वयः ॥ इत्येवं सर्वदात्मानां विद्यात् सर्वं समाहितः ।The years, the months, the days, and the hours have flown by my open window. Here and there an incident, a towering moment, a naked memory, an etched countenance, a whisper in the dark, a golden glow these and much more are the woven fabric of the time I have lived. Appreciate every little beautiful moment in every day of your life. Give it a try and you'll see the world from another perspective.
#Constructivism , however, argues that human interests do not just define the superordinate class of diseases. It is human interests, not biological malfunctions, that explain the judgments that subordinate members have the relevant biological character. Although constructivists accept that disease categories refer to known or unknown biological processes they deny that these processes can be identified independently of human values by, for example, a science of normal human nature. Constructivist conceptions of disease are normative through and through, although the precise account of the relevant norms will vary between scholars. Analytically, it seems that constructivism is distinct from the claim that disease is normative. However, constructivism and normativism do go together. One reason for this often a professed skepticism about the existence of a non-normative concept of malfunction. More broadly, constructivists may think of disease labels as instruments of social control and reflections of biologically ungrounded reactions to human difference. There may also exist, though this is less often brought to the fore, importantly different stresses on the kinds of value judgements that different theorists think are part of disease categories and their application. Typically, the relevant normative claim is taken to apply to the life of the person whose health is under discussion – it is bad for you to be that way. But in some contested cases the judgments are often held to be wider value-disvalue claims about society more broadly – it is bad for us if you are that way. To make things even more complicated, theorists will sometimes hold that the second type of judgement is what is really doing the work, but it masquerades as the first type. Arguments about disease concepts, as we shall see, are often bound up with political and social controversies in which diagnostic labels are impugned as instruments of oppression or social control.
