Skip to main content

Can Process Metaphysics Help Us Understand Mental Disorders Better?

This post is by Elly Vintiadis (The American College of Greece Deree College) on her recent paper "Mental Disorders as Processes: A More Suited Metaphysics for Psychiatry" (2022, Philosophical Psychology). (This is an updated version of her previous post in 2019.) 


Elly Vintiadis
Elly Vintiadis


In most discussions about the mind and mental disorders, the metaphysical framework within which they take place is rarely questioned. It is however, important to check our metaphysical beliefs – including our beliefs about what the world is made up of - because whether they are held consciously or not, they affect the way we understand the world and how we approach it scientifically. 

For this reason, in my recent work I explore what a metaphysical framework that puts at its center the notion of a process can add to our understanding of the mind and its disorders. I contend that seeing the world as fundamentally ‘processual’ in nature rather than in terms of substances and things, provides the best explanation of what we know about the mind and mental disorders while also allowing us to sidestep the problems of essentialism, reductionism and dualism in psychiatry. In addition, pragmatically it opens up the way for better treatment and prevention options. 

Traditional metaphysics has seen the world as made up of things that are in turn made up of smaller things - and so on all the way down. In contrast, according to process metaphysics the world is made up of processes that can be understood as occurrences that take place in time and that essentially involve change. That is, the world is made up of a hierarchy of intertwining processes that exist at different time scales– and whatever stability we experience in the world is the result of processes in dynamic interaction. Viewing brains and minds within a processual framework – and therefore as dynamic and physically, socially and historically situated - can not only make better sense of the plasticity and complexity of our brains but also allows us to give pivotal importance to the self-organization - through constant feedback and feed forward loops with their environment - of the brain and the mind. 

In addition, process metaphysics can ground criticism of both the familiar biomedical and the biopsychosocial model of mental disorders while also allowing us to improve the latter. If the world is, indeed, fundamentally made up of processes rather than things, the biomedical model of mental disorders, like any reductionist model, cannot do justice to the complexity of a world that is inherently processual. On the other hand, though the biopsychosocial model incorporates the interplay of biological, psychological and environmental factors when trying to understand mental disorders, in practice - and, I argue, in virtue of the metaphysical framework within which it is embedded – it remains static and fragmented. 

The conventional dichotomies of nature vs. nurture, and biology vs. culture, are ingrained in this model, despite the fact that it tries to highlight the importance of their interaction. In contrast, because processes have no hard boundaries, but flow into one another multidirectionally and sustain each other dynamically, there is no level that is ontologically primary so such dichotomies are not available in a process framework.

I argue that reconceptualising mental disorders as the products of complex changing processes that are extended in time can do justice to the influence that past occurrences have on the present mind and can better explain the fact that mental disorders are often multicausal and causally heterogeneous. At the same time, because on a process view a person is historically and socially situated and is the product of an ongoing developmental process throughout her life, such a view can add a more dynamic aspect to the biopsychosocial model thereby helping to improve it.

Popular posts from this blog

Delusions in the DSM 5

This post is by Lisa Bortolotti. How has the definition of delusions changed in the DSM 5? Here are some first impressions. In the DSM-IV (Glossary) delusions were defined as follows: Delusion. A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith). When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility.

Rationalization: Why your intelligence, vigilance and expertise probably don't protect you

Today's post is by Jonathan Ellis , Associate Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center for Public Philosophy at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and Eric Schwitzgebel , Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Riverside. This is the first in a two-part contribution on their paper "Rationalization in Moral and Philosophical thought" in Moral Inferences , eds. J. F. Bonnefon and B. Trémolière (Psychology Press, 2017). We’ve all been there. You’re arguing with someone – about politics, or a policy at work, or about whose turn it is to do the dishes – and they keep finding all kinds of self-serving justifications for their view. When one of their arguments is defeated, rather than rethinking their position they just leap to another argument, then maybe another. They’re rationalizing –coming up with convenient defenses for what they want to believe, rather than responding even-handedly to the points you're making. Yo

A co-citation analysis of cross-disciplinarity in the empirically-informed philosophy of mind

Today's post is by  Karen Yan (National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University) on her recent paper (co-authored with Chuan-Ya Liao), " A co-citation analysis of cross-disciplinarity in the empirically-informed philosophy of mind " ( Synthese 2023). Karen Yan What drives us to write this paper is our curiosity about what it means when philosophers of mind claim their works are informed by empirical evidence and how to assess this quality of empirically-informedness. Building on Knobe’s (2015) quantitative metaphilosophical analyses of empirically-informed philosophy of mind (EIPM), we investigated further how empirically-informed philosophers rely on empirical research and what metaphilosophical lessons to draw from our empirical results.  We utilize scientometric tools and categorization analysis to provide an empirically reliable description of EIPM. Our methodological novelty lies in integrating the co-citation analysis tool with the conceptual resources from the philosoph