Advertisement

Why Are Delusions Pathological?

  • Jorge Gonçalves
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Brain and Mind book series (SIBM, volume 12)

Abstract

The aim of this article is to identify a characteristic of delusions: that which makes them pathological. It may appear somewhat strange at first because one believes that delusions are precisely a pathological alteration of the mind. However, some authors have shown that although pathological delusions are the most studied, not all delusions have necessarily harmful consequences for the delirious subject or for others. Hence, it seems pertinent to question what makes delusions become a pathological state. Here I support the phenomenological perspective in which delusions are considered experiences. Specifically I follow Gallagher’s Multiple Realities model that holds that delusions are an alternative reality which I compare with the perspective that delusions are false beliefs. I hold that the two perspectives are not completely incompatible and that delusions are above all experiences. From this model I try to explain why delusions are not always pathological.

Keywords

Delusions Multiple realities Benign psychosis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Portuguese FCT (Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia) the Grant: SFRH/BPD/84773/2012.

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bortolloti, L. (2010). Delusions and other irrational beliefs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bortolotti, L. (2012). In defence of modest doxasticism about delusions. Neuroethics, 5(1), 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bortolloti, L., & Miyazono, K. (2015). Recent work on the nature and development of delusions. Philosophy Compass, 10(9), 636–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gallagher, S. (2009). Delusional realities. In M. R. Broome & L. Bortolloti (Eds.), Psychiatry as cognitive neuroscience: Philosophical perspectives (pp. 245–266). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gallagher, S. (2015). Why we are not all novelists. In P. F. Bundgaard & F. Stjernfelt (Eds.), Investigations into the phenomenology and the ontology of the work of art: What are artworks and how do we experience them? (pp. 129–143). London: SpringerOpen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Garrabé, J. (2003). La schizophrénie. Un siècle pour comprendre. Paris: Les Empêcheurs de penser en rond/Le Seuil.Google Scholar
  8. Graham, G. (2010). The disordered mind. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Jackson, M. (2007). The clinician’s illusion and benign psychosis. In M. C. Chung, K. W. M. Fulford, & G. Graham (Eds.), Reconceiving schizophrenia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Ratcliffe, M. (forthcoming). Selfhood, schizophrenia, and the interpersonal regulation of experience. Academia. November 17, 2016. https://www.academia.edu/13585253/Selfhood_Schizophrenia_and_the_Interpersonal_Regulation_of_Experience
  11. Sass, L. (1995). The paradoxes of delusion: Wittgenstein, Schreber, and the schizophrenic mind. Ithaca/New York/London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Schütz, A. (1945). On multiple realities. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 5(4), 533–576.Google Scholar
  13. Smith, M., Lewis, D., & Johnston, M. (1989). Dispositional theories of value. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 63, 89–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jorge Gonçalves
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas IFILNOVAUniversidade Nova de LisboaLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations