Phenomenology and psychopathology

摘要

In this response to Wiggins and Schwartz, Ratcliffe, and Stanghellini, we first wish to express our gratitude to Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology for providing us the space to clarify our views and to overcome certain misunderstandings. Ratcliffe notes that our critique is "harsh," whereas Wiggins and Schwartz lament the fact that the debate "has taken the form of sometimes acid formulations and rejoinders . . . that lack the tone of mutual appreciation" (2011, 31). We deplore the fact that this exchange was at all necessary, and we share Wiggins and Schwartz's concerns. However, we need to recall here and emphasize that our article originated as a response. It originated as a response to an article that was published in an update-review journal for a general psychiatric audience. It seems that Aaron Mishara was not only the author, but also the editor of the section in which his own article appeared. We were unable to ignore his paper, not least because of its form and tone, and deemed it rather pressing to clarify the avalanche of misunderstandings there-misunderstandings and twists that if left uncommented, could create a confusing picture of psychiatric phenomenology.