Theories of Psychosis versus: What It Is Like

Theories of Psychosis versusWhat It Is Like Sofia Jeppsson (bio) In his interesting comments on my article, Mohammed Abouelleil Rashed distinguishes between different senses in which one can try to render psychosis “intelligible.” One might explain what the psychotic worldview looks like from inside and it is go through this kind experience, or present an intelligible theory about psychosis. Philosophers psychiatry have, course, mostly been preoccupied with latter project, and, according Rashed, so am I, despite stated intention do former. To some extent, I believe fair criticism. All philosophers whose interests touch phenomenology are likely prone over-intellectualizing their experiences, likewise be intellectualize experiences a way that turn them into something non-philosophers not altogether recognize. By this, mean say descriptions explanations true memories thereof, but fact philosopher influence how experience remember things first place. If social sciences humanities complicated by observing people changes observes, should especially when scholars observe themselves. Nevertheless, will push back against critique: theorizing, hand, understanding was for someone other, projects as radically suggests. argue claim whereas we understand most people’s actions terms beliefs, desires, reasons, must use special understanding—focused bizarre they affect speech behavior—to people. point out matter fact, there plenty non-psychotic perfectly commonplace behavior rather than former, beliefs reasons given. We need mix these allegedly types whether person want not. But explaining one’s belief action require depending basis. give examples, text, causal provide no intelligibility sense—no insight like, nor person’s seen own view—like hypothesis delusional have lost ability accurately assess probabilities. also, occasionally, move pure what-it-is-like-territory, compare threatening feeling significance foreshadowing horror movie. don’t explanation just is; movie analogy best attempt [End Page 257] at describing accessible other discussion bedrock loss very much straddles line trying describe theorizing it. Although lament article having your previously firm crumble beneath (metaphorical epistemological) feet hard picture who has never there, nevertheless you feel. once lost, lacking bedrock, also lack any reason trust arguments real Here, potential general phenomenon—psychotic seem impossible with—but trust, example, doctor he claimed imagining things, part time. sat thinking were bad ones, because kept presupposing ought proved—that right wrong, reality neat separation between, couched such terms, what...