Skip to main content

In Crime and Punishment Part 5, Chapter 5, Lebeziatnikov tells Raskolnikov about a professor in Paris who believed in curing the insane through the...

Here's the passage from the novel in question; as you can see, the characters never mention a specific psychologist's name:



"Excuse me, excuse me; of course it would be rather difficult for Katerina Ivanovna to understand, but do you know that in Paris they have been conducting serious experiments as to the possibility of curing the insane, simply by logical argument? One professor there, a scientific man of standing, lately dead, believed in the possibility of such treatment. His idea was that there's nothing really wrong with the physical organism of the insane, and that insanity is, so to say, a logical mistake, an error of judgment, an incorrect view of things. He gradually showed the madman his error and, would you believe it, they say he was successful? But as he made use of douches too, how far success was due to that treatment remains uncertain.... So it seems at least."



Although we can't say for certain, Lebeziatnikov and Raskolnikov may have been discussing Philippe Pinel, a 19th-century French physician and psychiatrist who is well-known for advocating for more humane treatment of patients in insane asylums. We can thank him for helping people make that important shift from restraining and punishing the mentally ill to helping them and maintaining their dignity.


So you won't be surprised to know, also, that Pinel was known for using logic in his therapy sessions, helping his patients see that their delusions didn't make sense. The goal was to lead the patients back to a more sane understanding of reality. He believed that this kind of logical therapy should be the first line of defense against insanity, with medicines following afterward. It's a very modern idea: ask therapists today whether they agree with Pinel, and you'll probably find that they do.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.