Volume 28 (2018): Edizione 1 (October 2018)

Psychiatric phenomenology emerged from the willingness to spread Husserl’s program of going back to the things themselves into the psychiatric field. However, what this initial will then became is not very clear. We show that if this will to go back to the things themselves really enabled to bring phenomenology and psychiatry together (especially by the Swiss psychiatrist L. Binswanger), the thing to whom we have to go back changed over time: first conceived as the experience lived by people with a psychiatric disorder, it was then conceived as the psychiatric disorder itself. We show that both of these ideas are inadequate. Our thesis is that psychiatric phenomenology has to be considered as belonging to the hermeneutical field (as defined by Ricoeur and Gadamer). We show that this hypothesis leads to a more insightful understanding of what is psychiatric phenomenology and what status we should concede to it.

‘Quiet’ and ‘Disquiet’ are terms which express ways of accounting for time-experience, besides being equally open for a rendering as emotional states. Starting from three existential moods – stress, boredom, and the joy of the present moment – this inquiry aims to put into evidence the structuring features of our existential experience of time itself, both in the daily exercise of our being-in-the-world, and at the level of our being or not being in possession of oneself in such exercise and in its potentially pathological derivates. In this context, which finds its theoretical roots in the Heideggerian analysis of the being-in, quiet and disquiet reveal their paradoxical character in terms of the mutual belonging and tension each of them, respectively, presupposes. At the same time, and with such a basis, we will find the way of understanding ‘quiet’ as a correlate of time as a ‘duration’.

There is a paradox that lies at the heart of every investigation of normality, namely, its dependence on its other (e.g., deviation, break, difference). In this paper, I want to show that this paradox is the reason for the dynamism as well as fragility of normality. In this regard, I will not only argue that every normality is fragile, but also that normality can only be established because it is fragile. In the first part of this paper, I will present and re-visit Husserl’s account of normality as concordant and optimal with regard to its dynamic or fragile aspects. In the second part of this paper, I will apply this account to recent findings in phenomenological pathology regarding schizophrenia and depression to show how Husserl’s account could be helpful for differentiating between different aspects (such as concordance and optimality) as well as genetic levels of (disturbances of) normality.

A large amount of research in mental health care relates to the notion of trust, as a possible common factor in psychopathology, and as a common dimension of psychotherapeutic alliance, underlying the various therapeutic methods. Such hypotheses call for a more detailed analysis of this notion of trust. The paper seeks to shed light on this issue by confronting the clinical and phenomenological approaches. We propose to focus on three issues at stake: 1/ the issue of the existence of a tacit or pre-reflective trust, which can be defined by a phenomenological method. 2/ the issue of a foundation of trust in empathy, which questions the debates about empathy in phenomenological works. 3/ the issue of a structural self-opacity, brought to light through the paradoxical structure of trust, and that we propose to tackle with the notions of attestation and narrative identity.

The present paper reflects on hallucination and delusion in schizophrenia from a phenomenological perspective. The paper’s aim is to understand the relationship between these two symptoms within the theoretical paradigm of schizophrenia as a self-disorder. The paper draws on fundamental insights from contemporary phenomenological research by Louis A. Sass, Josef Parnas and Thomas Fuchs. The argument begins with current definitions of hallucination and schizophrenia in the DSM-5. I will critically illuminate these definitions by key thinkers of phenomenological psychopathology (or close to it), such as Karl Jaspers, Eugène Minkowski, Henri Ey and Merleau-Ponty. The paper’s main challenge is to understand hallucination and delusion beyond their respective alignment with perception (as though hallucination would simply be a perception without an object to perceptive) or false belief (as if delusion would simply be an absurd conviction).

At first sight, pain seems to be an unhistorical phenomenon: in its intrusive nagging presence, nothing refers to the past, and to remember one’s pain is only possible in an abstract sense. However, one’s individual sensitivity as well as one’s relation to pain are shaped biographically, even though we usually are not aware of this: pains are inscribed into body memory and thus unfold a lasting impact. The memory of the subject may thus also be conceived as a history of painful confrontations with the world, in the course of which the borders of self and non-self are constituted and accentuated. These interrelations are the topic of the paper.

In this paper I aim to reflect on Maine de Biran’s modernity with regard to the subject of a philosophy of anxiety. Biran first notes a connection between anxiety and motility; secondly, Biran invites us to think of intersubjectivity as something that is not foreign to the sensation of anxiety; third, Biran feels “surprised several times”, as if his own anxiety, while interior, were something that seems to originate from outside. These will by the main axes of this paper.

The aim of this work is to contribute to the ecological and phenomenological understanding of people with borderline personality disorder by analyzing the relation to the “limit situations”, a concept that was formulated one century ago by Karl Jaspers. This study makes it possible to go beyond the nosographic debate in which the pathological entity is often confined, by defining it as a disorder “situated” between neurosis and psychosis. The five limit-situations (which have been described by Gabriel Marcel in his introduction to Jaspers’ proposals) – namely, (1) historical situation, (2) love conflict, (3) suffering, (4) guilt, (5) and death – turn out to be crucial situations in which the limit-existence manifests itself in a specific way. In particular, we observe that the peculiarities of the experience characterizing the borderline individual’s limit situations rely on a temporality grounded on instantaneity and immediacy, and imply a specific relationship to others. Finally, the limit state seems to call into question this primordial tendency by suggesting that every man is bound to be part of time, to love, to feel guilty, to suffer and to flee this suffering, to die and to organize his life by considering such a condition of finitude.

How much the sense of an event depends on the one who lives it? According to Erwin Straus, there are some phenomena, which impose their sense, and no one in the audience of a performance, for example, can see a wildfire without being afraid of and escaping from it. Binswanger criticizes such a conception and claims that the sense of the event depends on the freedom and the biography of the subject. In this paper we would like to replace the issue in its phenomenological context and to establish that Straus as well as Binswanger are right and wrong but not of course in the same way.

Sartre’s attitude toward medicine has been neglected by researchers, insofar as his disinterest in sciences would justify the absence in his work of a thorough reflection on medicine or disease. The publication of some unpublished works on morals written between 1961 and 1965, when the war of Algeria was coming to an end, asks to reassess this issue. In these unpublished works, especially in Les racines de l’éthique, the issue of attitudes toward life and death draws significant attention. In this article, we dwell upon Sartre’s reaction to the famous infanticide trial held in Liège in 1962, also known as the Softenon Trial. Taking a stand against the accusatory comments of leftist journals, Sartre pays scrupulous attention to the biopolitical transformations that Western societies are then experiencing. This attention should be understood in the background of Sartre’s family history as well as in an unnoticed dialogue with the School of Annales, with the history of attitudes towards life and death delineated by Philippe Ariès and also with the history of sensibilities outlined by Lucien Febvre.