This dissertation in Theory of Practical Knowledge contends that depression is a disorder of the self. Using the existential-phenomenology of Maurice Merleau-Ponty, I argue that if we want to disclose the basic structure of depressed experience, then we must likewise disclose how selfexperience is inseparable from depressed experience. However, even though depression is a contemporary psychiatric category of illness, it is nevertheless a historically and heterogenous concept. To make sense of depression in the context of contemporary psychiatric practice, I show (...) that depression has historically been characterized by two broad models of causation; that is, a phenomenon that is causally explained by either a biological dysfunction or a psychological conflict. But this stark characterization is not limited just to history; by conducting qualitative interviews with psychiatric professionals, I illustrate how this causal dichotomy remains prevalent in contemporary psychiatric practice. On one hand, the clinicians report dissatisfaction with the depression diagnostic criteria (i.e. it is impersonal or vague), while on the other hand, the clinicians also recognize that a depression diagnosis is useful insofar as a diagnosis facilitates access to various resources associated with psychiatric care. Consequently, clinicians have developed a coping strategy that is witnessed in their empathetic desire to distance patients from their depression diagnosis, which led to statements such as, “you are not the problem, the problem is depression.” One consequence of this approach is that depression is artificially cleaved from the person who experiences depression, which subsequently means that depression is viewed to be something independent of oneself. Because I argue that depression and the self are mutually implicated, it is crucial to disseminate some of the most influential contemporary models of selfhood. I show that the brainbound, situated, psychological, and narrative model of self, all have respective strengths and weaknesses. But I also go beyond these models and characterize selfhood as a developmental phenomenon that is expressed as an embodied-style. This style reflects the way in which we establish perceptual contact with the otherness, without which there could be no self-experience. (shrink)

‘Cosmetic psychopharmacology’ is a term coined by Peter Kramer in his 1993 best‐seller, Listening to Prozac. It has come to refer to the use of psychoactive substances to effect changes in function for conditions that are either normal or subclinical variants. In this paper, I ask: What distinguishes an existential ailment from clinical depression, or either of those from normal depressed mood, melancholic temperament, dysthymia or other depressive disorders? Can we reliably distinguish one from the other? Are the boundaries of (...) illness and disorder really so distinct? If not, how can we know that treatment of ‘depression’ with Prozac in any given instance constitutes a cosmetic as opposed to, say, a medical or clinical use of psychopharmacology – a distinction that seems to turn on our ability to clearly differentiate the clinical from the cosmetic. If we cannot reliably distinguish between such conditions, can we even have a cosmetic psychopharmacology that is not a form of malpractice, broadly speaking? What if we unplugged Prozac from all the amplitude and hype that resulted in Listening to Prozac becoming an instant best‐seller and simply asked whether or not we can clearly distinguish an appropriate cosmetic use of Prozac for ‘depression’ from an inappropriate cosmetic use of Prozac, and both of those from Prozac's appropriate clinical, that is, non‐cosmetic uses? If we cannot make these distinctions, perhaps it is too early to say there can be such a thing as a cosmetic psychopharmacology. (shrink)

Setting the terms of praise‐ and blameworthiness has long dominated philosophers’ discussions of responsibility. Analytic philosophy has most often looked to reason and the abstract relations between individual rational judgements and actions to advance the discourse on moral responsibility. Those whose capacity for reasoned judgement is impaired are deeply problematic. Is it proper to morally appraise ‘the mentally ill’? The philosopher T.M. Scanlon discusses moral responsibility as a precondition of moral appraisal and contends that it is not appropriate to appraise (...) a person as (morally) praise‐ or blameworthy if that person cannot be held responsible for the action(s) for which he is being praised or blamed. What are the conditions, then, under which one can properly be said to be responsible for one's actions? Can one hold ‘the mentally ill’ responsible for their actions? If not, can it in any way be reasonable to expect them to ‘take responsibility’ for their actions and/or characters? The expectation that ‘the mentally ill’ will attempt to control, i.e. take responsibility for their behaviour despite the fact of their mental illness is a pervasive feature of psychiatric approaches to the care and treatment of ‘the mentally ill’. It would seem that such treatment approaches are coherent only to the degree ‘the mentally ill’ can be considered responsible moral agents. This paper explores these issues with regard to that form of mental illness categorized as the personality disorders. It describes the morally and clinically relevant features of personality disorder, explains how they do not fit traditional analytic paradigms of ‘mental illness’ and elaborates the argument that persons with this category of mental illness are fully moral persons who are rightly subject to praise and blame. (shrink)