Are you seriously suggesting ...
If so, you are talking arrant nonsense ! — John Gould
But the very idea of re-examining anglo-american philosophy from the second person point of view is, I'm told, quite a hot topic in some corners of academe. This summer I've been reading Stephen Darwall's 'Second Person Standpoint', (written in 2006) which proposes basing analytic ethics upon our mutual regard and respect. (One odd thing about it is how reluctant he is to use the word 'you', as if that wasn't part of the point)
There is also a whole strand of Continental thought issuing mostly from Mikhail Bakhtin about dialogue. I'm interested in how to apply this, not so much to ethics as to the philosophy of language. A Swedish guy called Per Linell has been working away at this for years, rethinking things dialogically. Everything we talk is talk-in-interaction, on this reading. We bring our presuppositions to the table, adjust as needed to communicate, act or not as we fancy and move on to the next interaction. — mcdoodle
It doesn't have to be different. I'm just saying what I think of what I'm gathering. Though I don't have the greatest amount of faith in communication, if I did I'd probably talk more. — Wosret
thanks for the homework assignments — unenlightened
So, I would suggest this interaction has more to do with belonging in a accepting social group than with language. The personality profiles of these people, do they struggle generally in group settings? Do they feel alienated and isolated in their everyday lives. Do they feel that nobody understands them? Are they the bottom of their social heap? — MikeL
No, I'm not. I'm reporting with references that other people have studied what is being done in Finland, and have found that it has far better results than conventional interventions. Now if you want to call this arrant nonsense, and be taken at all seriously, you had better put forth something at least as substantial by way of evidence and argument, because authoritarian fulmination alone cuts very little ice round here. — unenlightened
I regard the idea is not so much anti-psychiatry as taking a step back to ask what the context is. — mcdoodle
This brings me back to the pragmatics of said therapy device. There's little hope that despite how effective this therapy might seem, it will never take any hold in countries where the mainstream narrative or course of action is to refer a schizophrenic or bipolar to the psychiatrist and prescribe the pills. — Posty McPostface
There do seem to be initiatives in north America. Like this one: http://www.dialogicpractice.netQuite frankly, many therapists hereabouts and psychiatrists would call this homeopathy. Sadly enough. — Posty McPostface
The relation of parent to infant necessarily begins as a person-object relation, in which the parent is the author and authority, and the infant is a dependent object. The task is to conjure from this relation a new relation between individuals, by invoking the interiority of the infant, just as God created man in His own image. — unenlightened
The rejection of the parent as authority is a necessary part of the process of individualisation, just as the Fall is a necessary part of the creation of humanity. — unenlightened
but can find information that suggests that much of it clearly isn't true, and what may be simply hasn't even been properly investigated. — Wosret
Source.In the 1980s psychiatric services in Western Lapland were in a poor state, in fact they had one of the worst incidences of the diagnosis of schizophrenia’ in Europe. Now they have the best documented outcomes in the Western World. For example, around 75% of those experiencing psychosis have returned to work or study within 2 years and only around 20% are still taking antipsychotic medication at 2 year follow-up.
If that makes sense. — Wosret
those numbers are remarkable, and if it were true why isn't it quickly becoming the standard treatment? Why it is not even really being substantially investigated? The article suggests that it's simply because the results aren't nearly as remarkable as that documentary claims. Not in fact as good as the standard treatment from what it looks like. — Wosret
... is overly pessimistic an assumption, especially taken in conjunction with the fact that we are talking about early intervention and a diagnosis of schizophrenia requires that, "Continuous signs of the disturbance must persist for at least 6 months, during which the patient must experience at least 1 month of active symptoms (or less if successfully treated), with social or occupational deterioration problems occurring over a significant amount of time.", to justify some replication elsewhere and further trials.if we assume that they were the ones with schizophrenia then only 53 per cent of those with schizophrenia were medication free. And this is roughly consistent with the Merck Manual and the definition that outcomes for a simple psychosis are better than for schizophrenia. — your link
If the remarkable figures were true, it would have become standard practice.
If the remarkable figures were true, they would have been investigated. — unenlightened
I didn't make it about me... I was clearly discussing only what I understood to be the topic, although my first post was indeed a passing comment about me, and then I was asked to engage the topic, which I did without talking about myself. — Wosret
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.