Peter Zachar

Cet article explore la classification des troubles psychiatriques dans la perspective du modèle des espèces pratiques. En nous basant sur certains travaux en philosophie des sciences qui soutiennent que les éléments chimiques et les espèces biologiques ne possèdent pas de véritables essences, nous affirmons que les troubles psychiatriques ne devraient pas être compris, eux non plus, de façon essentialiste. Les troubles psychiatriques sont des « espèces pratiques », non des « espèces naturelles ». Ce modèle représente une approche pragmatiste de la classification qui pose, compte tenu de l’infinie complexité du monde, qu’une multitude de décisions peuvent jouer un rôle légitime dans la définition des limites des catégories. Il s’agit d’une approche nominaliste contemporaine qui considère les concepts et les catégories comme provisoires et partiels, sans toutefois rejeter l’idée qu’ils sont des espèces légitimes. Ce modèle rejette ce que Ian Hacking a nommé le structurisme inhérent, sans pour autant rejeter les espèces. Le modèle des espèces pratiques rejette aussi l’éliminativisme. Il est en accord avec les arguments non essentialistes offerts par les éliminativistes, mais il n’accepte pas leurs conclusions austères. Je discute finalement les complications et les imperfections du modèle.This article explores the classification of psychiatric disorders from the perspective of the practical kinds model. Based on work in the philosophy of science which argues that chemical elements and biological species do not have real essences, it is argued that psychiatric disorders should not be understood essentialistically either. Psychiatric disorders are practical, not natural kinds. This model represents a pragmatist approach to classification which holds that, because the world is so complex, a multitude of decisions can play legitimate roles in defining category boundaries. It is a contemporary nominalistic approach that views concepts and categories as provisional and partial, but does not reject the notion that there are legitimate kinds. It rejects what Ian Hacking has called inherent structurism, but not kinds. The practical kinds model is also anti-eliminativist. It agrees with the non-essentialistic arguments offered by eliminativists, but does not accept their austere conclusions. Complications and shortcomings of the model are discussed

Reply by the current authors to the comments made by Jaak Panksepps , James.A. Russell and Louise Sundararajan on the original article by Peter Zachar . I consider the utility of the concept of natural kind, and explore difficulties in applying it reliably. I examine categorical and dimensional approaches to affect with respect to both scientific realism and nominalist approaches to classification. I agree that eliminativist analogies are beneficial but argue that they cannot fully account for the relationship between folk and scientific psychology. I also claim that neither Panksepp's nor Russell's models are incommensurable with Sundararajn's deeper approach to affective science. I suggest that Panksepp's conclusions about the structure of primary affect may be incompatible with the dimensional model, which illustrates the limits of translational work. 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

In this brief commentary, I would like to discuss two reservations I have about the article by Bergner and Bunford. Before doing so let me make some preliminary remarks.Their hypothesis that the concept of disability unites the various mental disorder constructs that have been proposed over the centuries and across cultures is reasonable and accords well with common sense. The concept of disability does a lot of good work in helping us to understand mental disorders.With respect to the authors’ contrast between the disability conception versus the behavioral conception of mental disorder, the notion that counting behaviors alone justifies diagnosing a psychiatric disorder is worth critiquing. Claiming that everyone...

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Vice, Mental Disorder, and the Role of Underlying Pathological ProcessesNancy Nyquist Potter (bio) and Peter Zachar (bio)Keywordsresponsibility, virtue theory, cultural norms, psychopathologyThe issues discussed by John Sadler are among the most complicated in the philosophy of psychiatry, if for no other reason than that they highlight an area where disciplinary fault lines between clinical psychiatry/ psychology and philosophy seem most evident. We spent a year writing an article on the relationship between the assessment of personality disorders and moral evaluations, and these fault lines became manifest not only between ourselves, but also when discussing our ideas with members of the various disciplines.Many practicing psychiatrists acknowledge that moral attributions (such as manipulativity) might be made about people with certain disorders (such as borderline personality disorder), but also find the argument that psychiatric diagnoses are moral rather than medical conditions to be a ludicrous bit of antipsychiatry in the Szaszian tradition. Philosophers, on the other hand, are less involved with these diagnostic categories in their day-to-day work and are more willing to be skeptical. Whether they are doing philosophy of psychiatry, moral theory, or sociopolitical philosophy, they are interested in digging a little bit deeper and are not impressed by arguments to the effect that—it’s obvious that these are really disorders. Being “obvious” is not a persuasive philosophical argument.The metaphysical task of determining what belongs in the category of criminality compared with other ways of sorting behavior has parallels in moral philosophy: Why is fraud, or theft, criminalized whereas (most) lying is not? Why is one set of moral norms enforceable, whereas a second set is aspirational? Does the difference involve property, where infractions of property are thought to be more serious wrongs than lying, which is “only” psychological rather than material? Are the “most serious” wrongs the ones we mark as crimes? Why is sodomy still criminalized in some areas but betraying one’s lifelong love is viewed as morally reprehensible but not criminal? Both actions are private, and only one seems to do harm—unfaithfulness—yet that is the one that is not criminalized. The point here is that, regardless of domain, our classification systems need to be justifiable, yet justification is most often mystifying. [End Page 27]The same is true for classifying mental disorders. The class of mental disorders appears to be a somewhat inconsistent collection of heterogeneous conditions and does not form a natural kind (Zachar 2000). At the most, the class of mental disorders names a family of loosely related conditions and the reasons for inclusion can shift from disorder to disorder.If the class of mental disorders does not specify an internally coherent kind akin to gold, deciding on the scope of psychiatric practice becomes an important problem. As Sadler asks, for what reasons do we classify pedophilia with schizophrenia—both as disorders—but omit sadism? This is an important question of disciplinary scope.This question of scope is itself ethically charged because, on the one hand, bringing a condition under the purview of psychiatry offers the possibility for treatment, and at least establishes the goal of improving the lives of people with specific kinds of problems. Making lives better is one of the humanistic justifications for science itself; clearly it is a raison d’être of psychiatry. On the other hand, medicalization sets up the conditions for a certain kind of social control. Hospitalization, educational services, day treatment, and disability payments are all contingent upon psychiatric diagnostic practices. These programs and the institutions that manage them are both socially available and socially prescribed. The diagnosed behaviors can now be considered to be entities, and explanations of them can be developed. New technologies for altering them will also be introduced. Such practices have been associated with dehumanization (Phillips 2009).Two important questions also need to be distinguished. The first is a question for moral philosophy—What degree of responsibility do people with putative mental disorders have for their behaviors? For example, should people with psychotic disorders or personality disorders be held responsible for crimes they commit? If so, under what conditions? Should responsibility for certain behavior be mitigated? If so, under what conditions? Moral philosophy...

Emotion Review, Volume 14, Issue 1, Page 3-14, January 2022. Advocates for the psychological construction of emotion view themselves as articulating a non-essentialist alternative to basic emotion theory's essentialist notion of affect programs. Psychological constructionists have also argued that holding essentialist assumptions about emotions engenders misconceptions about the psychological constructionist viewpoint. If so, it is important to understand what psychological constructionists mean by “essentialism” and “non-essentialism.” To advance the debate, I take a deeper dive into non-essentialism, comparing the non-essentialist views of the early empiricists with those of the psychological constructionists, focusing on the theories of James Russell and Lisa Barrett. Using Lakatos’ notion of scientific research programs, I also describe how Russell's and Barrett's views have evolved into different and potentially competing research programs under the psychological constructionist banner.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Diagnostic Criteria, Psychological Tests, and Ratings Scales: Extending the HistoryPeter Zachar, PhD (bio)Le moigne narrates a history of the development of psychiatric ratings scales as hybrids between psychological tests and diagnostic categories. In his telling, psychological tests seek to quantify population-based traits on which every person has a position and which tend to be conceptualized as being stable. Personality traits are often conceptualized as dispositions. Diagnostic categories represent not trait-like properties of populations but episodic states consisting of clusters of symptoms experienced by individuals with disorders. Ratings, scales, he notes, are hybrids between the two. They are used to quantify psychiatric symptom clusters so that change over time can be measured. Le Moigne argues that these distinctions were initially suggested during the development of measures that could assess outcomes in psychopharmacological treatment studies.With respect to depression, Le Moigne writes that in the 1970s and 1980s something akin to depressive personality was reconceptualized as a temperament. A key move, somewhat reflective of Kraepelin’s notion of a depressive temperament, was to view a dysthymic temperament as both a predisposing factor and an attenuated form of depression. Thus, an episodic state commandeered the predisposing–dispositional role that was assigned to stable personality traits.This conceptual shift allowed test-like ratings scales to be seen as useful for quantifying not just stable traits, but salient features of episodic states that are potentially subject to change in response to interventions. To put it another way, in the development of a psychological test, one goal is to have high test-retest reliability (i.e., stability of measurement). With rating scales used to measure change, one wants the scores to not be as stable; ideally the scores on the later assessments will be lower. According to Le Moigne, when dysthymia was subsequently placed on axis I of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-III (as a syndrome) and segregated from personality disorders which were placed on axis II, personality traits were evicted from the conceptualization of depressive disorders.One perennial feature of psychiatry and psychology is that even if an older idea is superseded [End Page 253] in the view of some thinkers, it can still attract adherents. Indeed, interest in understanding a relationship between personality and attenuated states did not fully disappear. For example, based on research in genetics, the schizophrenia spectrum concept included not only schizophrenia, but also milder conditions such that were conceptualized as personality disorders; that is, schizotypal personality disorder and paranoid personality disorder (Kety, Rosenthal, Wender, & Schulsinger, 1971).During the development of the DSM-IV, some people wanted to add depressive personality disorder to the manual (Phillips, Hirschfeld, Shea, & Gunderson, 1995). It seems to have become a territorial dispute between mood disorder specialists and personality disorder specialists The mood disorders specialists challenged the personality disorder specialists to differentiate depressive personality disorder from early onset, chronic dysthymia. They were able to do so by using criteria such as critical, blaming, and derogatory toward self. After the mood disorders work group proposed incorporating some of those criteria into a revised criteria set for dysthymia, the two sets overlapped. The result was the old criteria for dysthymia were printed in DSM-IV and criteria for depressive personality disorder and the revised criteria for dysthymia were both placed in the appendix.In the DSM-5, Axis II was eliminated and personality disorders were placed alongside all the syndromic symptom clusters at the same level. Even so, interest in attenuated presentations as personality-related lingered still. During the development of the DSM-5 there was some thought to using diagnostic spectra as a meta-structure for organizing the manual (Andrews et al., 2009). One idea was to move some personality disorders into a best fitting spectrum, akin to attenuated forms. This did occur with schizotypal personality disorder which is both in the DSM-5 chapter on schizophrenia and in the chapter on personality disorder. In the schizophrenia chapter it is positioned as the earliest emerging disorder on the spectrum. There was also some interest in grouping avoidant personality disorder with the anxiety disorders, but the evidence supporting such a change was not available.These issues may...

A professor of philosophy at Western University in Ontario, with joint appointments in Philosophy and the School of Health Studies, Louis Charland unexpectedly passed away on May 9, 2021. In addition to Western, he taught at the Universities of Toronto, McGill, and Concordia. He had visiting appointments at Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the History of Emotion in Perth, and the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin. Beyond his teaching and research, he also undertook consulting work for several hospitals and governmental and social service agencies.Louis was the son of a diplomat and was raised as a citizen of the world, with Paris...

In recent decades, Christian democracy has had a major impact on Hungarian politics. Both the first freely elected Hungarian Prime Minister, József Antall, and the current Prime Minister have favored the term Christian Democrat and have placed themselves in the heritage of this intellectual movement. This study tries to analyze the similarities and differences between the approaches of the two Hungarian politicians and explore their roots in the era between the two world wars. The study focuses on the differences between the Christian democratic movement after 1945 and the thoughts of political Catholicism in the so called Horthy-era.

This interdisciplinary work addresses the question, "What role should psychological conceptualization play for thinkers who believe that the brain is the organ of the mind?" It offers readers something unique both by systematically comparing the writings of eliminativist philosophers of mind with the writings of the most committed proponents of biological psychiatry, and by critically scrutinizing their shared anti-anthropomorphism from the standpoint of a diagnostician and therapist. Contradicting the contemporary assumption that common sense psychology has already been proven futile, and we are just waiting for an adequate scientifically-based replacement, this book provides explicit philosophical and psychological arguments showing why, if they did not already have both cognitive and psychodynamic psychologies, philosophers and scientists would have to invent them to better understand brains. (Series A)