治疗的前提是对健康状况的充分了解。医生们行医时，除了消除已知的症状或原因外，并没有非常明确的健康概念。病理学需要强大而持续的自我检查。威廉·詹姆斯(William James)更像是一个民间心理学家，而不是一个真正的心理学家，弗洛伊德主义是无用的。毕竟，“歇斯底里症”在很大程度上是通过将患者从紧身衣中解放出来并让他们投票来治愈的。他所讲的病理显然是社会性的，而不是个体性的，所以诚实地谈论它在一段时间内起到了作用。但当谈话失败时，药剂师跳了进来。一点(表面上的)成功促使他们疯狂地宣称有利可图的治疗方法，而他们根本无法确定这些疗法是真实的。在临床精神病学中，能把诊断和预感区分开来吗?受高额费用影响的预感。 The question never seems to be asked, what are emotions for? Are all emotions pathology? Or is the pathology the assumption that there is an objective test of health? If our emotions are a way reason has of evidencing the inadequacy of the very structure of reasoning, then we as philosophers ought to pay attention, and stop letting the matter rest with the pathologists. If we don't know how to feel, maybe this only means we not done yet feeling it. Don't tell me how to feel, but respond so as to let the changes in how we are unable to know how to feel clarify how we both do feel. That clarity, I submit, is emotional health. Observation is poison to it. Participation is the only real therapy. Condition Absolute, I believe it has been called.
阿尔茨海默病是真实存在的，我已经看过两次了，专业人士似乎被难住了，这就把问题留给了我们这些可怜的情感可有可无的人，尽我们所能去解决。专业人士声称，在许多根本没有被很好地定义为不正常的领域有有效的治疗方法，面对这一领域的失望应该是一场愤怒的丑闻。抑郁症在同样的意义上是不真实的，尽管我曾有过一次发作，后来我发现这是某种形式的莱姆病。恐惧的不是猎人，而是猎物。在一个几乎没有反省空间的生活中，焦虑是可以预期的，甚至在它中发现只有病态。美国人的生活被分为两种，不是情欲和死亡，而是激情和沮丧，热烈的掌声和无法表达的痛苦，因为只有激情，只有疯狂的热情，才被赋予权利。

Another important point. Again, the idea of pathology implies a holistic comprehension, which is not justified by the current state of understanding. It is all well to isolate glaring cases of disorders and try to sort out some ad hoc remedial actions to take against it. It is quite another to brush aside the implication of the whole and to use pathology to carve the issue into manageable pieces. That is, to suppose that the pathology of specific damage to the brain not only obviates the lack of a holistic understanding, but provides the best means of achieving it. This, as so much else in philosophy, is ass backwards thinking. But then so much in philosophy is now awry that many of our number look for channels of expression that do an end-run around the mess it is in. The interpretive pathway, blazed by Adorno and others, is one obvious example. But another is cognition. But where the aesthetics of interpretation proceeds properly from whole to parts, "cognitive science" falls into the error of pathology bereft of a more complete notion of its subject. As I have noted elsewhere, the most scathing criticism of a philosopher is that he does not know he's talkng about. If you do not know your antecedent your inferences are worthless.

I recommend that you read Robert Whitaker's book, "Anatomy of an Epidemic" for a comprehensive and well researched examination of the history and current issues with the use of psychotropic drugs.

I wonder what the role of cultural and societal norms is in establishing the parameters of mental disorders. I also wonder about the subjective, individual contribution to these definitions is, especially when biological and/or genetic evidence for a disease is not readily available or easily understood. It seems that more and more situations like general dissatisfaction with one?s, for example, economic status as compared to the status of someone else or one?s understanding of hardships could play a role in assuming that one needs therapy or medication for some type of mental disorder. Objectivity and clarity are clouded by one?s perception of what is accepted in our society or by one?s ability to endure stress or to cope with or adapt to a less comfortable existence. Isn?t depression, for example, a commonly used word in our world (aside from clinical diagnosis)? It?s literally everywhere, used for everything, applied to so many situations. But then, if one feels depressed to the point that it affects one?s daily activities, shouldn?t this be the line at which the ailment is considered enough to be categorized as a symptom/mental disorder that necessitates treatment? Grief is another puzzle for me: it is said that you have one year to experience normal grief before it is considered pathological. After that point, you need to be treated, as it becomes a mental disorder. One year? What if the individual naturally resolves grieving after one and a half years or what if grieving naturally becomes a part of an individual?s existence? Do all these individuals necessarily suffer from a mental disorder? I believe that for as long as the field of psychiatry will not incorporate a scientific and holistic approach to understanding and regulating certain ?pathologies,? we all risk to be suffering someday from a mental disorder.

Moreoever, psychiatry as a science is not that old, so there?s probably still a lot to be discovered about the underlying causes of mental disorders. In the meantime, the best approach is to define them by symptoms and use that provisional definition to further research and investigate what?s really going on.

我真的很喜欢这个博客。这是一个信息量大的话题。它帮我解决了很多问题。它的功能是如此神奇，工作风格如此迅速。我想这对你们所有人都有帮助。谢谢你和我一起分享我的博客。我非常欣赏!我们期待着另一个伟大的博客。祝作者好运!所有最好的!

I am not so certain that Psychiatry can, at this later date, clean up its act. It has been the butt of jokes for so long that any other guise, legitimate or contrived, seems likely to be futile. I recall, in the nineteen sixties and seventies, manic depression was the term of art for a kind of mental illness. Jimi Hendrix sang about it, calling it a frustrating mess. More recently, it appears that the term has morphed into bi-polar disorder. Sounds less dramatic, doesn't it? Less threatening, maybe. And perhaps for those who are diagnosed as such, it may be less stigmatic. So, I just don't know...there is academic knowing and there is experiential knowing. The gulf between those realms is wide and the human mind gives up its' secrets with extreme prejudice. Wait a bit, and bi-polar disorder may evolve into cookie-jar syndrome.

0.) To be fair, the D.S.M. does not consider normal grief at the loss of a loved one pathological—there is if course great room for argument as to the limits of 'normal', but it's not as if it calls the widower sobbing at the funeral 'clinically depressed'.
1.) As a physicist, I try not just to be smug at every science trying to reach the condition of physics—I want also to mention that all the sciences include long periods in which most if what they _can_ do is to observe and to tentatively classify. (In physics, I will note, noöne before Einstein had a good explanation for the observed fact that the mass of an object as defined by inertia exactly matched its mass as measured by gravity.)
2.) The pathologisation of everyday life tracks the extent to which normal life has seemed to have become more precarious. We opted for not having a First World welfare state, largely because we have an horror of The Unworthy getting by without sufficient pain, and now children are taught that one wrong move and their future lives will be hell…and parents for whom children didn't 'just happen' feel like it would be all their fault.

WWII veterans both had a lot of company who might at least potentially understand them, were overwhelmingly told that what they had done was virtuous, and typically spent months not fighting then weeks on a troop ship to adjust.

主观经验是一门科学，但它不同于唯物主义科学、实验研究等。科学的原则仍然是反思临床现实，与该领域的其他人分享观点，评估干预措施、模型和结果——以及理论的负面后果。
The DSM5 is a categorical system without psychodynamics, etiologic, treatment or neurophysiologic factors. It simply creates clusters of symptoms and course. This was useful when medication trials required some shared criteria for research. This is no longer sufficient. Dimensional criteria for diagnosis are the future of psychiatric nosology--cognitive, social/cultural, economic, medical, intellectual, etc.
Meanwhile, Freud attempted theory 100 years ago. Anyone who thinks that represents modern psychological science is ignorant or foolish.
依恋和大脑发育的研究和理论对理解人类痛苦和指导临床技术产生了深远的影响。和治疗。
非临床医生(社会学家、哲学家和病人?)可能没有充分考虑这些问题，或面临提供护理的责任——所以他们的意见是真空的。