What do you think? Does the possibility of psychosis prove that there is an objective reality? — Purple Pond
In their current conceptualization of psychosis, both the APA5 and the World Health Organization8 define psychosis narrowly by requiring the presence of hallucinations (without insight into their pathologic nature), delusions, or both hallucinations without insight and delusions.6 In both of these current diagnostic classification systems, impaired reality testing remains central conceptually to psychosis.
So we have a way of determining something is not there or not like what they experience. One unified objective reality assumed.Hallucinations - A profound distortion in a person's perception of reality, typically accompanied by a powerful sense of reality. An hallucination may be a sensory experience in which a person can see, hear, smell, taste, or feel something that is not there.
IOW we have a way of determining which beliefs (about the way things are) are correct. One unified objecive reality assumed.Delusion - refers to a strongly held belief despite evidence that the belief is false
At some level, reality testing is impaired in all psychotic phenomena. Dysfunctional reality testing is evidenced by: auditory or visual hallucinations. fixed false beliefs or delusions.
In response to Locke’s line of thinking, Immanuel Kant used the expression “Ding an sich” (the “thing-in-itself”) to designate pure objectivity. The Ding an sich is the object as it is in itself, independent of the features of any subjective perception of it. While Locke was optimistic about scientific knowledge of the true objective (primary) characteristics of things, Kant, influenced by skeptical arguments from David Hume, asserted that we can know nothing regarding the true nature of the Ding an sich, other than that it exists. Scientific knowledge, according to Kant, is systematic knowledge of the nature of things as they appear to us subjects rather than as they are in themselves.
Sure, but the other model leaves room for finding value in what the other person is experiencing, but putting it in a different context: metaphorical, related to interpersonal dynamics, related to the past, related to something other than a particular train. The binary approach is problematic. People, for example trauma survivors, often come up with best explanations for what they are experiencing. And these are false or partially false, if takne about the here and now, or the boyfriend they consider the devil, but if investigated turn out to be about past events. This is a banal example, in the sense that we need not have a new paradigm for reality to see that a nuanced approach to the 'hallucination' is better than merely dealing with it in a binary way and trying to, for example, medicate it away.The train still makes a mess. — Banno
My sense in this passage is that the dispute doesn't stop the philosophers from avoiding moving trains. — JosephS
What do you think? Does the possibility of psychosis prove that there is an objective reality? — Purple Pond
What do you think? Does the possibility of psychosis prove that there is an objective reality? — Purple Pond
You have to suffer, not clean yourself, not work well, mess up relationships to get the heavier diagnoses, in general. You do your work, function in a marriage, eat,shower and shave, you can think you are Napoleon.Are psychiatrists implicitly direct realists? They diagnose only certain people with psychosis because they hear or see things that aren't there. If we never perceive the world but only our own sensations, we never see anything that's really there, making us all psychotic — Purple Pond
I guess one could make a distinction, that between true reality and normal reality. The former is inaccessible as some posters have mentioned but the latter is what most people perceive and have a consensus on. What if psychotics are those who can, at certain times, perceive true reality? The rest of us would find that "abnormal" and put all sorts of labels on it. — TheMadFool
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.