Delusions and beliefs: a knowledge-first approach (original) (raw)
Related papers
Delusions and the Non-Epistemic Foundations of Belief
In her paper “Shaking the Bedrock,” Bortolotti (2011) acknowledges that our bedrock (or what we prefer to call ‘background’) theory of delusion contributes to the understanding of what is delusional about some delusions, but ques- tions whether it has the broad scope we intended for it. In this response, we begin by rehearsing our understanding of the non-representational ‘bedrock’ of our belief as first articulated in Witt- genstein’s On Certainty, before elaborating on the bedrock or background theory of delusion and defending it against Bortolotti’s objections. Our aim is to show that the radically non-epistemic, non-representational, non-propositional, and particularistic account of the bedrock articulated by Wittgenstein and developed by Searle avoids the objections which Bortolotti offers while also allowing for an account of the delusionality of delusions, which is indeed general in scope.
The aim of the paper is to offer a characterisation of delusional systems of belief. The view defended in the paper is that the explanations that appear in delusional systems of belief do not effect a reduction in the number of things left unexplained. In this respect, it is argued, delusions differ from both common sense and from scientific explanations. The thesis is defended with a range of examples, including some simple examples from the history of science. Particular attention is paid to differences between scientific explanations and those that figure in delusions. Since delusions leave more things unexplained than common-sense and science, it follows that a person suffering from delusional belief has a reduced level of understanding of the world around them. It is also argued that that the thesis that delusional beliefs fail to minimise that which requires explanation is able to deal with some usually “difficult cases” for accounts of delusional thinking.
Précis of Delusions and Beliefs: A Philosophical Inquiry
Asian Journal of Philosophy
The central hypothesis of this book, Delusions and Beliefs: A Philosophical Inquiry (Routledge, 2019), is that delusions are malfunctional beliefs (Chapter 1); they belong to the category of belief (Chapter 2) but, unlike mundane false or irrational beliefs, they fail to perform some functions of belief (Chapter 3). More precisely, delusions directly or indirectly involve some malfunctioning cognitive mechanisms, which is empirically supported by the two-factor account of delusion formation (Chapter 4).
Delusions and Not-Quite-Beliefs
Neuroethics
Bortolotti argues that the irrationality of many delusions is no different in kind from the irrationality that marks many non-pathological states typically treated as beliefs. She takes this to secure the doxastic status of those delusions. Bortolotti’s approach has many benefits. For example, it accounts for the fact that we can often make some sense of what deluded subjects are up to, and helps explain why some deluded subjects are helped by cognitive behavioral therapy. But there is an alternative approach that secures the same benefits as Bortolotti’s account while bringing additional benefits. The alternative approach treats both many delusions and many of the non-pathological states to which Bortolotti compares them as in-between states. Subjects in in-between states don’t fully believe the beliefs which it is sometimes convenient to ascribe to them. This alternative approach to belief and belief-ascription fits well with an independently attractive account of the varied purposes of our ordinary attitude ascriptions. It also makes it easier to make fine-grained distinctions between intentional attitudes of different kinds.
Delusions and Other Not Quite Beliefs
Neuroethics, 2012
Bortolotti argues that the irrationality of many delusions is no different in kind from the irrationality that marks many non-pathological states typically treated as beliefs. She takes this to secure the doxastic status of those delusions. Bortolotti’s approach has many benefits. For example, it accounts for the fact that we can often make some sense of what deluded subjects are up to, and helps explain why some deluded subjects are helped by cognitive behavioral therapy. But there is an alternative approach that secures the same benefits as Bortolotti’s account while bringing additional benefits. The alternative approach treats both many delusions and many of the non-pathological states to which Bortolotti compares them as in-between states. Subjects in in-between states don’t fully believe the beliefs which it is sometimes convenient to ascribe to them. This alternative approach to belief and belief-ascription fits well with an independently attractive account of the varied purposes of our ordinary attitude ascriptions. It also makes it easier to make fine-grained distinctions between intentional attitudes of different kinds.
The Epistemic Innocence of Elaborated Delusions Re-Examined
Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 2023
The aim of this paper is twofold. First, I want to reexamine the epistemic status of elaborated delusions. Bortolotti (2016, 2020) claims that they can be epistemically innocent. However, I will show that this type of delusions is more unique than suggested by the existing analyses of their epistemic status. They typically cause more profound harms than other kinds of delusions, and in most cases, it would be counterproductive to classify them as epistemically beneficial or innocent. I will employ predictive and phenomenological models of delusions and the enactivist notion of sensus communis to explain the harms and possible benefits of elaborated delusions and why I think the existing definition does not fully grasp them. Based on this analysis, I will propose changes to the conditions for epistemic innocence.
In Defence of the Doxastic Conception of Delusions
Mind & Language, 2005
In this paper we defend the doxastic conception of delusions against the metacognitive account developed by Greg Currie and collaborators. According to the metacognitive model, delusions are imaginings that are misidentified by their subjects as beliefs: the Capgras patient, for instance, does not believe that his wife has been replaced by a robot, instead, he merely imagines that she has, and mistakes this imagining for a belief. We argue that the metacognitive account is untenable, and that the traditional conception of delusions as beliefs should be retained.
Delusions, Levels of Belief, and Non-doxastic Acceptances
Neuroethics, 2012
In Delusions and Other Irrational Beliefs, Lisa Bortolotti argues that the irrationality of delusions is no barrier to their being classified as beliefs. This comment asks how Bortolotti's position may be affected if we accept that there are two distinct types of belief, belonging to different levels of mentality and subject to different ascriptive constraints. It addresses some worries Bortolotti has expressed about the proposed two-level framework and outlines some questions that arise for her if the framework is adopted. It also suggests that, rather than being beliefs that fail to meet the relevant standards of rationality, delusions may be non-doxastic acceptances that were never meant to meet them.
The Folk Epistemology of Delusions
Neuroethics, 2012
Lisa Bortolotti argues convincingly that opponents of the doxastic view of delusion are committed to unnecessarily stringent standards for belief attribution. Folk psychology recognises many non-rational ways in which beliefs can be caused, and our attributions of delusions may be guided by a sense that delusions are beliefs that we cannot explain in any folk psychological terms.