Kapusta Andrzej
Faculty of Philosophy and Sociology at the Marie Curie-Sklodowska University in Lublin, Poland.
Ann Agric Environ Med. 2013;20(4):832-7.
Karl Jaspers' theory on the incomprehensibility of psychotic disorders has become the reference point for many critical studies in the field of contemporary psychopathology. According to Jaspers, it is impossible to understand any of the serious mental disorders often referred to as 'psychosis' because of their unreasonableness, a truth that is revealed when one attempts to empathize with the mental states of patients afflicted with a particular mental disorder. These elements are psychologically inaccessible and closed to any form of empathy. The theory of incomprehensibility is the starting point for many contemporary discussions on the nature of mental illness. It refers to the pathogenic causes of mental disorder and, at the same time, leads to the marginalization of 'pathoplastic'--personal, family related and environmental factors responsible for mental distress. The presented article criticizes the theory of incomprehensibility in light of the contemporary discussion within the (new) philosophy of psychiatry about the role and function of psychiatry and psychopathology. Many authors criticize the theory of incomprehensibility, particularly its implications for understanding and explaining mental disorders. The views presented in the article--post-psychiatry, the psychiatry of common sense, the socio-cultural approach and engaged epistemology/embodied cognition--aim to reveal the broader dimensions of human pathological experience. Particularly appreciated by the author, engaged epistemology and embodied cognition aim to connect social and experiential points of view with the more scientific neuropsychiatric research, and refer to the hidden levels of our experience while always placing such elements in the social context, as well as describing human pathological symptoms against this social background. The basic aim of the presented paper is to stress the need for a review of dogmatic assumptions on the nature of mental illness, and to discuss the possibility of explaining the mental and neurobiological aspects of psychopathology within the social and experiential context.
卡尔·雅斯贝尔斯关于精神障碍不可理解性的理论已成为当代精神病理学领域许多批判性研究的参考点。根据雅斯贝尔斯的观点，由于其不合理性，不可能理解任何通常被称为“精神病”的严重精神障碍，当人们试图共情患有特定精神障碍患者的心理状态时，这一事实便会显现出来。这些因素在心理上是无法触及的，并且对任何形式的共情都是封闭的。不可理解性理论是许多当代关于精神疾病本质讨论的起点。它涉及精神障碍的致病原因，同时导致“病理塑形性”因素——即导致精神痛苦的个人、家庭相关和环境因素——被边缘化。本文根据当代精神病学（新）哲学中关于精神病学和精神病理学的作用与功能的讨论，对不可理解性理论提出批评。许多作者批评不可理解性理论，尤其是其对理解和解释精神障碍的影响。本文中呈现的观点——后精神病学、常识精神病学、社会文化方法以及参与式认识论/具身认知——旨在揭示人类病理体验的更广泛维度。作者特别赞赏的是，参与式认识论和具身认知旨在将社会和经验观点与更科学的神经精神病学研究联系起来，提及我们体验的隐藏层面，同时始终将这些因素置于社会背景中，并在这一社会背景下描述人类病理症状。本文的基本目的是强调有必要审视关于精神疾病本质的教条式假设，并讨论在社会和经验背景下解释精神病理学的心理和神经生物学方面的可能性。
