Debates surrounding the nature of mental disorder have tended to divide into an objectivist camp that takes psychiatric classification to be a value-free scientific matter, and a normativist camp that takes it to be irreducibly values-based. Here we present an overlooked distinction between _status_ and _constitution_. Questions of the form “What is x?” are ambiguous between status questions (“What gives something the status of an x?”), and constitution questions (“Given that something has the status of an x, what is it (...) made of?”). We elucidate this distinction in detail, and argue that normativism is uniquely well-placed to answer status questions while objectivism provides answers, where they are available, to constitution questions. (shrink)

Despite its widespread use in philosophy and cognitive science, there remains disagreement regarding how to conceptualise the distinction between the personal and the subpersonal. While the distinction was originally formulated in terms of kinds of explanation, some argue that it primarily pertains to kinds of psychological states or processes. This diversity of perspectives leads to uncertainty about how to understand the distinction and assess its utility. To advance the discussion, we propose three desiderata for an account of the distinction: Extensional (...) Adequacy, Explanatory Adequacy, and The Neutrality Requirement. Based on these desiderata, we critically evaluate recent accounts of the personal/subpersonal distinction and offer an alternative account that satisfies these desiderata. This alternative aligns with explanation-based formulations but is more specific in explicitly adopting an interrogative pragmatist view of explanation. (shrink)

The experiences described in the VIP transcripts are incredibly varied and yet frequently explicitly labelled by participants as "voices." How can we make sense of this? If we reflect carefully on uses of the word "voice", we see that it can express at least two entirely different concepts, which pick out categorically different phenomena. One concept picks out a speech sound (e.g. "This synthesizer has a "voice" setting"). Another concept picks out a specific agent (e.g. "I hear two voices: one (...) is a ten year-old boy…"). This chapter explores how these two concepts are related to one another in the context of voice-hearing. (shrink)