I’d like to propose a new term: “philosophical disorder.”
It’s when someone has a persistent belief that’s both highly inaccurate and substantially harmful. Here are some examples:
- A false belief that you are unlovable
- Being convinced that God punishes pre-marital with death
- Believing that “no usually means yes” in sexual encounters
Whereas a psychological disorder consists of emotions, thoughts, and personality traits creating distress or impairment, many WITHOUT psychological challenges have “Philosophical Disorders.” All it takes is being infected by false ideas that either harm the believer or lead them to harm others.
Since people will naturally disagree regarding which ideas are false or harmful, I think the term “Philosophical Disorder” is best reserved just for the extreme cases, where it’s easy for an outside observer to see both the falsity and harm of a belief.
Furthermore, much like it would rarely be a good idea to tell someone (outside of a therapeutic relationship or very trusting friendship) that you think they have a “psychological disorder,” telling someone you think they have a “philosophical disorder” is not advisable.
A true belief that causes harm at least has the virtue of being accurate, and trying to change it would imply some form of deception. Some people would rather believe a difficult truth than a comforting falsehood. On the other hand, a false belief that causes no problems can at least be said to be harmless, and one could argue that it’s not worth taking the time to correct it. Philosophical disorders, on the other hand, must (by definition) be both highly inaccurate and substantially harmful – they are the category of beliefs we can unequivocally say are worth correcting.
I require a belief to be “persistent” to meet the definition of philosophical disorder because if it is going to go away on its own anyway (e.g., a temporary harmful, false belief while someone is having a drug trip), it feels like it’s in a fundamentally different category (and action to change the belief is usually not as important since it is time-limited).
— A Better Understanding of “Evil” —
Pretty often, when large groups do what seems to be extreme evil, they are led by either a low-empathy narcissist or a sociopath. But chances are that most of the rank-and-file members of that group have philosophical disorders, not psychological disorders. Pretty often, even the leader has a philosophical disorder.
As an example, consider the case of religious zealots who are truly convinced that blowing up civilians is a holy act. Or the many groups whose members have become convinced they are inherently superior to other groups, whom they then kill or subjugate.
It’s understandable that people call those who commit atrocious acts “evil” regardless of their motivations, but there is a big difference between doing something highly harmful that you’re truly convinced is a good deed and doing a highly harmful act selfishly or with indifference towards the suffering of others.
While plenty of harm is caused by people due to their having some psychological traits, like sociopathy or low empathy narcissism, it may well be that as much or even more is caused by people who are pretty typical psychologically but who have philosophical disorders.
— Philosophical Disorders vs. Psychological Disorders —
Philosophical disorders can cause very bizarre behavior that is easily confused with a psychological disorder. As an example, some school shooters are well-characterized as having psychological disorders (e.g., showing signs of psychosis or sociopathy – like being convinced monsters lived in their basement at home or torturing animals for fun), whereas other school shooters may have been infected with harmful false belief systems (e.g., that others deserve death), hence, they might be better understood to have philosophical disorders. But without a careful inspection, the behavior (a “school shooting”) looks the same. The same outcome is coming from a different cause. I think it can be a clarifying question to ask: is this particular case best explained by a psychological disorder or philosophical disorder (or both simultaneously).
The link between psychological and philosophical disorders is complex. Philosophical disorders can both cause and be caused by psychological ones. For instance, falsely believing that nobody likes you could make you depressed. And schizophrenia can cause false, harmful beliefs (such as paranoid beliefs that others are out to get you).
In Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, “negative core beliefs” are sometimes uncovered as being a major factor causing a person’s depression or anxiety. That being said, typically, other factors are at play as well, such as patterns of behavior, reactivity to negative stimuli, disruptive thoughts, and so on.
But occasionally, a psychological disorder can be said to very directly result from a philosophical disorder (e.g., constant anxiety because of being convinced that lustful urges imply eternity in hell). In other cases, philosophical disorders are really not the right level of explanation for a psychological challenge (since emotional reactions, behavioral patterns, disruptive thoughts, etc., may better characterize what’s happening). Additionally, it’s possible to have a severe philosophical disorder without having a psychological disorder.
— Categorizing Philosophical Disorders —
As with psychological disorders, we might attempt to organize philosophical disorders. To do so, we might consider different aspects along which they can vary. Here’s a first attempt:
(1) Who is substantially harmed?
A. Self harmed (e.g., “I will fail at everything I try”)
B. Others harmed (e.g., “people of group X are inferior”)
C. Both harmed, meaning the belief harms both self and others (e.g., a man believing that “no men are trustworthy”)
(2) What is the false belief about?
A. Self (e.g., “My angry thoughts prove I am evil, even if I don’t act on them”)
B. Humanity (e.g., “Pretty much everyone is a bad person”)
C. People of importance in your life (e.g., a false belief that “my wife is cheating on me”)
D. Future events (e.g., “It is inevitable that the world ends in a nuclear holocaust sometime in the near future”)
E. Past events (e.g., “Mistakes my parents made when raising me have forever doomed me to being miserable”)
F. God (e.g., “God hates group X”)
G. Reality (e.g., “What if the whole world is just my imagination, and nobody else is real? I can’t prove that anyone else other than me exists.”)
(3) How was this belief acquired?
A. Caregivers who raised you (e.g., “you’re a bad child, nobody is ever going to love you”)
B. Culture of your region (e.g., “female circumcision is an important right of passage”)
C. Religion (e.g., “you will be rewarded in heaven if you die as a martyr killing the enemy”)
D. Group membership (e.g., falling into a social circle that has a shared philosophical disorder, for instance, a cult or movement)
E. Argumentation (e.g., reading an essay that convinces you that humanity should be wiped out)
F. Personality (e.g., narcissists tending to believe they are inherently superior to others)
G. Drugs (e.g., when someone forms an upsetting false belief while on drugs that persists afterward, such as that nothing is real)
H. Psychosis (e.g., the paranoid beliefs that schizophrenia sometimes causes)
I. Previously accurate but now resolved (e.g., you have a belief that people are not trustworthy because when you were young, the people around you really weren’t trustworthy, but you haven’t updated your belief even now that you are around mainly trustworthy people)
Of course, there are a lot of overlaps between the categories above.
When you hear of someone engaging in really a harmful behavior, it may be worth asking whether it better fits the hypothesis of a psychological disorder or of a philosophical one.
This essay was first written on July 20, 2020, and first appeared on this site on November 19, 2021.
Comments