Delusions treated with epiricism vs. A-priori approach- how would that look like?

An Empirical Approach to Understanding Delusions vs. A priori reasoning.
Delusional (Paranoid) Disorders

Lets have a look into the definition of Delusional Disorders...
they are a form of Psychosis in which a person has paranoid delusion(s) which are often long-lasting, and do not have an obvious physical/medical cause (e.g. head injuries). Occasionally they may be accompanied by the person hearing noises, sounds, other people talking, which don't exist (called auditory hallucinations).

If the cause is not found, the person can still be helped by things such as Antipsychotic Medication, and possibly psychotherapies. People can and do recover from paranoid delusions. However, it is extremely variable, and there are many people who do not.
Thanks to the empirical approach, the Disorder is studied and understood as a health/ brain disorder rather than meta-physical. While in hospital, or perhaps being seen by a mental health professional (e.g. a psychiatrist) out of hospital, the cause of the paranoid delusions might be found (e.g. Schizophrenia), and this can then be treated.

"With the growth of psychopharmacology and the development of biochemical and neurophysiological research, the need for careful description of clinical phenomena in psychiatry is greater than ever before." (Hamilton 1976)

A-priori (without the science research) a person with such a disorder would not be helped and further more, not believed and left alone with the problem. That could result in being excluded from a society, avoided and left for self distraction.

However,furthermore, given all the research on psychosis in the intervening three decades, it is striking that our understanding of the concept of delusion remains limited. It is often assumed that delusion and normal thinking are qualitatively different. This belief may derive in part from the subjective strangeness (craziness).

But empirical and conceptual, studies of delusional thinking provide support for the view that delusions lie at the extreme of a continuum of thought content. Much like the label "hypertension" the decision to use the label "delusion" is somewhat arbitrary, since a qualitative difference at some point appears to be clinically described, whereas the empirical and conceptual evidence suggests only quantitative difference.


Inspiration:
Winchester University Journalism Course People and Politics, Empiricism vs. A-Priori
Ghaemi, S. Nassir. An Empirical Approach to Understanding Delusions
Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology - Volume 6, Number 1, March 1999, pp. 21-24
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/simplepsych/paranoia.html
http://www.psychnet-uk.com/dsm_iv/delusional_disorder.htm

People and Politics - Which political system?

Is it the Monarchy? No, it could potentially, eventually convert to corrupt Tyrany.
Aristocracy? No, as it could become Oligarchy. Anarchy is not an answer either, as it's based on the idea of ‘state of nature’ and realistically, it is too basic to be taken as a principal of creation a well functioning State.

Absolutism... dictatorship, on the other hand, reaching XV century roots system, has centralised power and it would stand above society and dominate all the political and economical spheres. In this case, society would eventually divide into government supporters and left wing party, all that would lead to creating social structures. Then, legitimate standards between the organisations and also between ruling and ruled would have to be the next step leaning towards developing diplomatic relations or probably violent riots against the State...

Well, lets say that the 'Power' should remain in hands of the strongest organisation or perhaps there should be few of the leading organisations so that could rule over certain interests and issues, like specialised smaller ‘government groups’ rather then generally idealised one.


Is Pluralism the answer?

Those few 'elite organisations' would probably, naturally, compete with each other so the power will eventually fall on the strongest ruling organisation and the other ones would work under.

This idea could work in the Marxian version of the ‘Body Sate’ but would it be good enough for the Perfect State?

The under organisations could, assumingly, divide into either supporting the main organisation The Government or those who will not. Also, the society would surely want to choose who they want to be ruled by and so Democratic Election could become a perfect solution, but even this ideal and fair idea can be undermined. Corruption.

Monarchy will probably not survive unless it has only representative role for the State, the ruling power should be spread onto plural power- organs ruling underneath the Monarch but not less important. The inherited power is not a reasonable decision. It can be seen by the society as an ‘unfair choice’ of the ruling person as well as waste of money for keeping up with the traditional ‘King/Quinn like habits (expensive palaces, demonstrations, cult of the royalty for people that may not even know what they are doing). Skills, charisma and ability to rule the State, not for the personal benefits should be the features of the ruling organisation which would be democratically chosen for the role.

Democracy certainly brings state together, settles ‘inner peace’ in the macro-politics sphere.
The class division will probably always exist as the state is formed by the theory of the ‘state of nature’.

There should be no class system where ‘uppers’ use ‘lowers’ for self benefits only, but there should be cooperation created for an overall benefit. Need for materialistic goods and development of the State as well as among the ‘inner organisations’ should become a collective interest for the state-society benefit, not one or another separately.

Another issue would be to organise and set the roles for the organisations that will be helping the Governing ‘Body (personally I believe that the elite group would work better than an individual )’. Legislation should sate all relations so that all the ‘organs would work beside fulfilling each other at the same time’ creating strong structure supporting the main ‘Governing Body’.


How could the State be made better?

I believe the answer is to find the right balance between those having and using power truthfully and those whose lives depend on the right decisions of the Governing Body.

The perfect State is the one with rather complexed structure of a significantly strong Governing Body (organisation of people), chosen democratically and not having an absolute power but responding in front of the Law equally with other members of the State-Society.

The Law would bring justice and peace to the state and strengthen relation between the Members of the Society and Government Organisations.


Winchester University Journalism Course People and Politics

Winchester University Journalism Student - my first post!

I started my own Blog in my first year of Journalism at the Winchester University. I am going to be posting stories, thoughts on lectures, books, articles, personal reflections, phylosophies and a lot more.

It’s going to be my personal record of intellectual and phylosophical fights and life experiences. First steps into Journalism of every kind. News, Features, Filming, Production, Photography, Phylosophy, Art, Religion, Politics, Law, History Literature, all in context of Journalism and not only!

Make sure you check out my Poetry Blog too: Veronica's Poetry- Poezja Weroniki (also in Polish) and Online Journalism at our University's run News Website: Winchester News Online (WINOL) where I learn to be a Video Journalist and Sub Editor for Production team of the News Bulletin.

Take a noticeof my Photography which you can see all over the blog.
All the links can be of significant help in reading and broadening the understanding of my posts.

Join me, Follow up! Comment on my work or simply exchange ideas.
Let me learn from you, spread ideas or simply get to know each other.

Thank you
Veronica Frydel
Winchester University Journalism Student