In face of the multiple controversies surrounding the DSM process in general and the development of DSM-5 in particular, we have organized a discussion around what we consider six essential questions in further work on the DSM. The six questions involve: 1) the nature of a mental disorder; 2) the definition of mental disorder; 3) the issue of whether, in the current state of psychiatric science, DSM-5 should assume a cautious, conservative posture or an assertive, transformative posture; 4) the role (...) of pragmatic considerations in the construction of DSM-5; 5) the issue of utility of the DSM – whether DSM-III and IV have been designed more for clinicians or researchers, and how this conflict should be dealt with in the new manual; and 6) the possibility and advisability, given all the problems with DSM-III and IV, of designing a different diagnostic system. Part 1 of this article took up the first two questions. Part 2 took up the second two questions. Part 3 now deals with Questions 5 & 6. Question 5 confronts the issue of utility, whether the manual design of DSM-III and IV favors clinicians or researchers, and what that means for DSM-5. Our final question, Question 6, takes up a concluding issue, whether the acknowledged problems with the earlier DSMs warrants a significant overhaul of DSM-5 and future manuals. As in Parts 1 & 2 of this article, the general introduction, as well as the introductions and conclusions for the specific questions, are written by James Phillips, and the responses to commentaries are written by Allen Frances. (shrink)

In the conclusion to this multi-part article I first review the discussions carried out around the six essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis – the position taken by Allen Frances on each question, the commentaries on the respective question along with Frances’ responses to the commentaries, and my own view of the multiple discussions. In this review I emphasize that the core question is the first – what is the nature of psychiatric illness – and that in some manner all further (...) questions follow from the first. Following this review I attempt to move the discussion forward, addressing the first question from the perspectives of natural kind analysis and complexity analysis. This reflection leads toward a view of psychiatric disorders – and future nosologies – as far more complex and uncertain than we have imagined. (shrink)

In face of the multiple controversies surrounding the DSM process in general and the development of DSM-5 in particular, we have organized a discussion around what we consider six essential questions in further work on the DSM. The six questions involve: 1) the nature of a mental disorder; 2) the definition of mental disorder; 3) the issue of whether, in the current state of psychiatric science, DSM-5 should assume a cautious, conservative posture or an assertive, transformative posture; 4) the role (...) of pragmatic considerations in the construction of DSM-5; 5) the issue of utility of the DSM - whether DSM-III and IV have been designed more for clinicians or researchers, and how this conflict should be dealt with in the new manual; and 6) the possibility and advisability, given all the problems with DSM-III and IV, of designing a different diagnostic system. Part I of this article will take up the first two questions. With the first question, invited commentators express a range of opinion regarding the nature of psychiatric disorders, loosely divided into a realist position that the diagnostic categories represent real diseases that we can accurately name and know with our perceptual abilities, a middle, nominalist position that psychiatric disorders do exist in the real world but that our diagnostic categories are constructs that may or may not accurately represent the disorders out there, and finally a purely constructivist position that the diagnostic categories are simply constructs with no evidence of psychiatric disorders in the real world. The second question again offers a range of opinion as to how we should define a mental or psychiatric disorder, including the possibility that we should not try to formulate a definition. The general introduction, as well as the introductions and conclusions for the specific questions, are written by James Phillips, and the responses to commentaries are written by Allen Frances. (shrink)

In face of the multiple controversies surrounding the DSM process in general and the development of DSM-5 in particular, we have organized a discussion around what we consider six essential questions in further work on the DSM. The six questions involve: 1) the nature of a mental disorder; 2) the definition of mental disorder; 3) the issue of whether, in the current state of psychiatric science, DSM-5 should assume a cautious, conservative posture or an assertive, transformative posture; 4) the role (...) of pragmatic considerations in the construction of DSM-5; 5) the issue of utility of the DSM - whether DSM-III and IV have been designed more for clinicians or researchers, and how this conflict should be dealt with in the new manual; and 6) the possibility and advisability, given all the problems with DSM-III and IV, of designing a different diagnostic system. Part I of this article took up the first two questions. Part II will take up the second two questions. Question 3 deals with the question as to whether DSM-V should assume a conservative or assertive posture in making changes from DSM-IV. That question in turn breaks down into discussion of diagnoses that depend on, and aim toward, empirical, scientific validation, and diagnoses that are more value-laden and less amenable to scientific validation. Question 4 takes up the role of pragmatic consideration in a psychiatric nosology, whether the purely empirical considerations need to be tempered by considerations of practical consequence. As in Part 1 of this article, the general introduction, as well as the introductions and conclusions for the specific questions, are written by James Phillips, and the responses to commentaries are written by Allen Frances. (shrink)

For many Christians, personal experiences of God provide an important ground or justification for accepting the truth of the gospel. But we are sometimes mistaken about our experiences, and followers of other religions also provide impressive testimonies to support their religious beliefs. This book explores from a philosophical and theological perspective the viability of divine encounters as support for belief in God, arguing that some religious experiences can be accepted as genuine experiences of God and can provide evidence for Christian (...) beliefs. (shrink)

There is much in the responses by Dolores Morris, Doug Geivett, and Jim Beilby with which I fully agree. But here I try to clarify a few issues and to identify points where we might simply disagree. I focus on the issue of those who experience the world as godless (Dolores); broadening the definition of religious experience (Dolores and Doug); suggested revisions of the argument from fulfilled expectations (Dolores); and especially the vexing questions associated with epistemic peer disagreement (Jim and (...) Doug). (shrink)

INTRODUCTION Philosophy is a discipline of fundamental diversities and extremely divergent modes of thought some of which occupy center stage in Western ...

Religious Experience and the Knowledge of God is concerned with questions about the degree to which and the ways in which religious experiences, especially theistic experiences, can provide epistemic support for Christian beliefs. I adopt a critical trust approach to religious experiences and argue that, with appropriate qualifications, it can be reasonable for someone to believe that he or she has had a veridical experience of God and that this can provide some evidential support for certain Christian claims.

Mele questions the prevalence and ontological status of strong forms of self-deception, as well as our attempt at experimental demonstration. Without validated indicators outside laboratory contexts, statements about prevalence are purely speculative. Conceptualizing self-deception without positing the motivated lack of awareness of a contradictory belief is unsatisfactory in dealing with issues of “agency,” that is, how can we stop the processing of threatening information unless we recognize that the information is threatening?

This article tackles the sole surviving ancient commentary on what was perhaps the second most important Platonic work, with special interest for the manner in which the ancients tackled the setting of Plato's dialogues, Socratic ignorance, Socratic eros, the central myth-like Palinode, and the question of oral as against written teaching.

The American University Publications In From its inception Philosophy has continued the direction stated in the sub-title of the initial volume that of probing new directions in philosophy. As the series has developed these probings of new directions have taken the two fold direction of exploring the relationships between the disparate traditions of twentieth century philosophy and with developing new insights into the foundations of some enduring philosophic problems. This present volume continues both of these directions. The interaction between twentieth-century (...) Anglo-Saxon and Continental philosophy which was an implicit theme of our first and third volumes and the explicit subject of our second volume is here continued in a series of studies on major figures and topics in each tradition. In the context of these interpretative studies, Professor Durfee returns again and again to the question of the relationships between the will and the reason, and explores the conflicting goals of creativity and objectivity in formulating a philosophic position. In so doing he raises the issue as his title suggests - of the foundations of philosophy itself. He seriously challenges the belief common to both pheomenology and analytic philosophy that philosophizing can be a presuppositionless activity, objectively persued independent of the personal (and, perhaps, arbitrary) commitments of the philosopher. This issue, critical as it is to all forms of philosophy, is surely a worthy one for a series such as ours. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:408 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY The Fellowship of Being. By John B. O'Malley. (The Hague: Martinus Niihoff, 1966. Pp. xii + 140. $5.60) This book is a study of the concept of person in the philosophy of Gabriel Marcel. It is the revision of a doctoral thesis, completed at the University of London, under the direction of A. J. Ayer. This fact, in addition to the intrinsic interest of the (...) subject, gives the volume special interest, for it is one of an increasing number of essays establishing dialogue between British analytic interests and continental phenomenology. John B. O'Malley is well aware of current analytic concerns and frequently notes the relevance of Marcel's analysis to these issues. It is even argued that Marcel anticipated numerous concerns which became central in analytic philosophy includingproblems of language. O'Malley proposes that the person is the central and guiding concept in Marcel's philosophy and that his analysis of this phenomenon allows him to escape Idealism and ghost theories, and to reconcile the moral and the metaphysical viewpoints. It is to the person that bodily or mental predicates are applied. Consequently this concept is fundamental to the analysis of body-mind problems. It is this reality which offers the nonlinguisticreferent to which such predication may apply. An adequate analysis of person must not abstract from its subject matter but rather must include the person in "an act of reflective withdrawal." This is central in Marcers methodology, and thus the epistemology of the person is neither "acquaintance with" nor "knowledge about." The neglect of such involvement results in either extreme objectivism or extreme subjectivism, either of which misses the person. Objectivism replaces the personal with successive states and qualities. Subjectivism results in either solipsism or in a division between an absolute and a particular ego, and thus both lose the concrete and incarnate person. The embodied person is the center of my relationships and thus even ontological analysis must be directed toward it. The analysis cannot be merely problematic but needs to be meta-problematic. The person offers such meta-problematic analysis a meeting point of Being, Truth, and Value, thus overcoming the dichotomy between the moral and the metaphysical and between the normative and the descriptive. Unfortunately the essay could have used a further proof reading for it is marred by numerous printing errors. Although it is somewhat ponderous in style, it is a very carefully argued analysis of what is central to Marcel. To have such a discussion sympathetic to Marcel's perspective and yet written by one quite conscious of British philosophical concerns affords significant insight for the reader into a new stage of contemporary philosophy which is undoubtedly to center upon such conversation across the English channel. HAROLDA. D ~ American University Menschliche Existenz und moderne Welt. Ein internationales Symposion zum Selbstverst~indnis des heutigen Menschen. Hrsg. Richard Schwarz. (Berlin, 1967. Two vols., S. 810 and 885) In der "Einfiihrung" umreisst der tterauageber den Titel des Werkes. Es soil nach dem Selbstverst~indnis des Menschen gefragt werden, das heiflt, worin sieht der heutige Mensch die besondere Eigenheit seines Menschseins, sein "Epochalbewul~tsoin" (Litt). Gibt es gewisse Grundbefindliehkeiten,die MienMensehen gemeinsamsind? Kann noch yon einer gemeinsamen Wertwelt gesproehen werden? Sind dieses nicht infolge einer inneren Bedrohung nur fiberholte Gedanken? Das Werk soll die Antwort geben. Es ist nicht mSglich, alle in dem Buch aufgenommene Aufs~tze zu behandeln, mSgen sic auch gewinnreiche Beitr~ige sein. Datum muff eine gewisse Auswabl getroffen werden. Zu Beginn des Werkes spricht der leider verstorbene Eduard Spranger fiber den "Humanit ~tsgedanken", den er unter dem dreifachen Aspekt der Humanit~t als Bildung, als ethischpolitischen Begriff und als religiSs-ethischen Begriff wiedergibt. Bildung ist nicht blofl Tradi- BOOK REVIEWS 409 tion, sondern immer neue lebendige Durehdringung, Gelstesformung, nicht nur Grammatik. Humanitat fordert ethisch-politische Freiheit als Voranssetzung der Personentfaltung, ist darum mehr als blofie Nfitzlichkeit und verlangt Anerkennung des Lebensreehts anderer V61ker. Nach Spranger gibt es einen religiSs-ehristlichen Humanismus im Gegensatz zur "Theologie der Krisis". Er steht in Verbindung mit dem Weltsein, verleiht ihm den letzten transzendenten Bezug und fordert "echte Toleranz". Alfred yon Martin-M~nehen erSrtert dann in "Humanitgt als Problem tier Gegenwart" angesichts... (shrink)

The potentiality and power of human rationality is the hallmark of Greek philosophy, whether Platonic or Aristotelian. Renaissance and Enlightenment philosophers developed the logos of rationality as a central feature of modern culture, either in the form of mathematical rationalism or experiential reasoning, with appropriate debate between these diverse modes. A self-conscious culmination of the logos of reason was the elaboration of German Idealism complemented by Anglo-Saxon representatives, which idealism came under severe attack in the twentieth century from both positivistic (...) or analytic philosophers as well as from phenomenological and existential thinkers. Within this latter community and specifically in the arena of philosophy of religion, a most serious attack was launched upon European idealism and classical rationalism, which attack is the focus of this essay. (shrink)