Advertisement

Neuroethics

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 13–17 | Cite as

Mad Belief?

  • Eric Schwitzgebel
Original Paper

Abstract

“Mad belief” (in analogy with Lewisian “mad pain”) would be a belief state with none of the causal role characteristic of belief—a state not caused or apt to have been caused by any of the sorts of events that usually cause belief and involving no disposition toward the usual behavioral or other manifestations of belief. On token-functionalist views of belief, mad belief in this sense is conceptually impossible. Cases of delusion—or at least some cases of delusion—might be cases of belief gone half-mad, cases in which enough of the functional role characteristic of belief is absent that the subject is in an “in-between” state regarding the delusive content, such that it is neither quite right to say the subject determinately believes the delusive content nor quite right to say that she determinately fails to believe that content. Although Bortolotti (2010) briefly mentions such “sliding scale” approaches to the relationship of delusion and belief, she dismisses such approaches on rather thin grounds and then later makes some remarks that seem consonant with sliding scale approaches.

Keywords

Belief Bortolotti, Lisa Delusion Dispositions Functionalism 

References

  1. 1.
    Lewis, D. 1980. Mad pain and Martian pain. In Readings in philosophy of psychology, vol. 1, ed. N. Block. Cambridge: Harvard.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bortolotti, L. 2010. Delusions and other irrational beliefs. Oxford: Oxford.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schwitzgebel, E. 2002. A phenomenal, dispositional account of belief. Noûs 36: 249–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bleuler, Eugen (1911/1950). Dementia praecox or the group of schizophrenias, trans. J. Zinkin. New York: International UniversitiesGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gallagher, S. 2009. Delusional realities. In Psychiatry as cognitive neuroscience, ed. M.R. Broome and L. Bortolotti. Oxford: Oxford.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sass, L.A. 2001. Self and world in schizophrenia: Three classic approaches. Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology 8: 251–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schneider, Kurt (1950/1959). Clinical psychopathology, trans. M. W. Hamilton. New York: Grune and StrattonGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schwitzgebel, E. 2001. In-between believing. The Philosophical Quarterly 51: 76–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schwitzgebel, E. 2010. Acting contrary to our professed beliefs, or the gulf between occurrent judgment and dispositional belief. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 91: 531–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ramsey, F.P. 1931. The foundations of mathematics and other logical essays. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davidson, D. 1985. Incoherence and irrationality. Dialectica 39: 345–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dennett, D.C. 1987. The intentional stance. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bayne, T., and E. Pacherie. 2005. In defence of the doxastic conception of delusions. Mind and Language 20: 163–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of California at RiversideRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations