Philosophy of mind in the clinic: the relation between causal and meaningful explanation in psychiatry.
D H Brendel
Harvard Review of Psychiatry October 1, 2000 DOI: 10.1080/hrp_8.4.184 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Topics | Philosophy of mind |
| Keywords | Humans Psychophysiology Psychological theory Mind-body relations, metaphysical |
| Key points | Argues that eliminative materialism is questionable because psychological concepts remain critical even in well-defined brain pathology, and proposes explanatory pluralism, the pragmatic integration of diverse concepts, as a better framework for psychiatry. The author contends that Jaspers's denial of causal power to meaningful states is disputable, with implications for psychiatric ethics and the fact/value debate. |
Abstract
Conceptual dichotomies between mind and brain, psychology and neuroscience, meaning and causation, and fact and value confound thinking in philosophy of mind, clinical psychiatry, and psychiatric ethics. Paul Churchland's theory of eliminative materialism highlights these dichotomies, stating that advances in neuroscience have restricted, and eventually will eliminate, any need for psychology. The core principles of this theory are questionable, because psychiatrists still need psychology and perhaps always will. The main argument in this essay is that even in cases of well-defined brain pathology (where eliminative materialism seems most plausible), psychological concepts remain critical. Thus, philosophers and psychiatrists should generate conceptual models that lead not to eliminativism but to explanatory pluralism, which is the pragmatic integration of diverse concepts toward the end of better handling clinical challenges. The contributions of Karl Jaspers in opposition to eliminative materialism and in support of pluralism are discussed. Jaspers delineated the role of meaningful psychological explanation in a psychiatry rooted in neuroscientific explanation. However, his notion that meaningful states do not have causal power is disputable and has come under fire in recent philosophy of mind and cognitive neuroscience, which highlight the possibility that meaningful psychological states can be causally significant. This idea has implications for psychiatric ethics and the fact/value debate.
Comparable studies
Other theoretical and historical papers on philosophy of mind, most cited first.
| Study | Year | Design | Participants |
|---|---|---|---|
| Psychosis as a state of aberrant salience: a framework linking biology, phenomenology, and pharmacology in schizophrenia. | 2003 | Theoretical or philosophical paper | |
| From dopamine to salience to psychosis--linking biology, pharmacology and phenomenology of psychosis. | 2005 | Theoretical or philosophical paper | |
| How do the brain's time and space mediate consciousness and its different dimensions? Temporo-spatial theory of consciousness (TTC). | 2017 | Theoretical or philosophical paper | |
| The phenomenology of deep brain stimulation-induced changes in OCD: an enactive affordance-based model. | 2013 | Theoretical or philosophical paper | |
| Looking for the Self: Phenomenology, Neurophysiology and Philosophical Significance of Drug-induced Ego Dissolution | 2017 | Theoretical or philosophical paper |