Should phenomenological approaches to illness be wary of naturalism?

Abstract

In some quarters within philosophy of medicine, more particularly in the phenomenological approaches, naturalism is looked upon with suspicion. This paper argues, first, that it is necessary to distinguish between two expressions of this attitude towards naturalism: phenomenological approaches to illness disagree with naturalism regarding various theoretical claims and they disapprove of naturalism on an ethical level. Second, this paper argues that both the disagreement with and the disapproval of naturalism are to a large extent confused. It then offers some proposals to set up an agenda for future collaboration.

Phenomenology’s place in the philosophy of medicine

“…Thus, Svenaeus emphasizes the bodily nature of the disturbance, claiming that the ill body "shows up as an alien being (being me, yet not me) and this obstruction attunes the entire being-in-the-world of the ill person in an unhomelike way" [11, p. 233]; but he also highlights the affective dimension of illness, claiming that to be ill is "to find oneself in a pattern of disorientation, resistance, helplessness, and perhaps even despair" [11, p. 232; all passages from 11 here are also cited in 5, p. 463]. 2 Havi Carel also seeks to uncover the constitutive features of illness experiences, though it is not always clear whether she means to offer a phenomenology of serious somatic illness only, or, more ambitiously, a phenomenology of illness as such. In other words, there are two plausible ways to interpret Carel's project.…”

“…Sholl is not alone in this view. For a growing chorus of critics, phenomenological work in the philosophy of medicine and adjacent fields calls to mind the fabled emperor, strutting through town, naked and shameless, boasting of virtues no one else can see [2][3][4].…”

Understanding understanding in psychiatry

“…Jaspers argues for understanding as part of psychiatry only by falsely homogenizing the natural sciences as sharing a single well-defined method (see also Ferry-Danini, 2018 , 2019 ). His view of both the natural sciences and the human sciences is completely antipluralistic, assigning each with exactly one method and one epistemic goal.…”

Adaptive Preferences: A Philosophical Issue Raised by an Expanded Model of Health

“…Scholarly work continues toward integrating naturalism with views of health that emphasize subjective (self and society) and sociohistorical factors in conceptualizing health. Recently, a philosopher examined typical concerns that naturalism, with its emphasis on normal functioning of the body, conflicts with the phenomenological view of health in privileging the lived experiences of being at home in one’s body (Ferry-Danini, 2019). However, he argued that with more philosophical work in the health sciences, including nursing, we can realize congruence between the two perspectives that supports a more humanizing healthcare.…”