阿加西对精神疾病的治疗:批判理性主义与制度个人主义的视角

IF 0.6 1区哲学 Q4 ETHICS

Philosophy of the Social Sciences Pub Date : 2022-10-20 DOI:10.1177/00483931221128508

N. Laor

{"title":"阿加西对精神疾病的治疗:批判理性主义与制度个人主义的视角","authors":"N. Laor","doi":"10.1177/00483931221128508","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Joseph Agassi, together with Yehuda Fried, presented the paradoxes of paranoia and proposed to explain and solve them by introducing innovative diagnostic criteria for psychosis as reflecting a specific kind of rationality. Their ethical-clinical framework however, discouraged discussion of placing impositions on the mentally ill, even when in danger. According to these very criteria, Agassi’s institutional individualism framework renders paranoiacs defective in autonomy. Introducing the idea of degrees of autonomy as a guiding principle for research and practice will promote responsible commitment to the mentally ill and to all other persons in society.","PeriodicalId":46776,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of the Social Sciences","volume":"53 1","pages":"3 - 15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Agassi’s Treatment of Mental Illness: The Perspectives of Critical Rationalism and Institutional Individualism\",\"authors\":\"N. Laor\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00483931221128508\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Joseph Agassi, together with Yehuda Fried, presented the paradoxes of paranoia and proposed to explain and solve them by introducing innovative diagnostic criteria for psychosis as reflecting a specific kind of rationality. Their ethical-clinical framework however, discouraged discussion of placing impositions on the mentally ill, even when in danger. According to these very criteria, Agassi’s institutional individualism framework renders paranoiacs defective in autonomy. Introducing the idea of degrees of autonomy as a guiding principle for research and practice will promote responsible commitment to the mentally ill and to all other persons in society.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46776,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophy of the Social Sciences\",\"volume\":\"53 1\",\"pages\":\"3 - 15\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophy of the Social Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00483931221128508\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy of the Social Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00483931221128508","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

约瑟夫·阿加西(Joseph Agassi)与耶胡达·弗里德(Yehuda Fried)一起提出了偏执的悖论，并提出通过引入创新的精神病诊断标准来解释和解决这些悖论，因为精神病反映了一种特定的理性。然而，他们的伦理-临床框架不鼓励对精神病患者施加压力的讨论，即使是在危险的时候。正是根据这些标准，阿加西的制度个人主义框架使得偏执狂在自主性上存在缺陷。将自主程度的概念作为研究和实践的指导原则，将促进对精神病患者和社会上所有其他人负责任的承诺。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Agassi’s Treatment of Mental Illness: The Perspectives of Critical Rationalism and Institutional Individualism

Joseph Agassi, together with Yehuda Fried, presented the paradoxes of paranoia and proposed to explain and solve them by introducing innovative diagnostic criteria for psychosis as reflecting a specific kind of rationality. Their ethical-clinical framework however, discouraged discussion of placing impositions on the mentally ill, even when in danger. According to these very criteria, Agassi’s institutional individualism framework renders paranoiacs defective in autonomy. Introducing the idea of degrees of autonomy as a guiding principle for research and practice will promote responsible commitment to the mentally ill and to all other persons in society.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Philosophy of the Social Sciences Multiple-

CiteScore

2.10

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： For more than four decades Philosophy of the Social Sciences has served as the international, interdisciplinary forum for current research, theory and debate on the philosophical foundations of the social services. Philosophy of the Social Sciences focuses on the central issues of the social sciences, including general methodology (explaining, theorizing, testing) the application of philosophy (especially individualism versus holism), the nature of rationality and the history of theories and concepts. Among the topics you''ll explore are: ethnomethodology, evolution, Marxism, phenomenology, postmodernism, rationality, relativism, scientific methods, and textual interpretations. Philosophy of the Social Sciences'' open editorial policy ensures that you''ll enjoy rigorous scholarship on topics viewed from many different-- and often conflicting-- schools of thought. No school, party or style of philosophy of the social sciences is favoured. Debate between schools is encouraged. Each issue presents submissions by distinguished scholars from a variety of fields, including: anthropology, communications, economics, history, linguistics, philosophy, psychology, and sociology. Each issue brings you in-depth discussions, symposia, literature surveys, translations, and review symposia of interest both to philosophyers concerned with the social sciences and to social scientists concerned with the philosophical foundations of their subjects.