Suchergebnisse

Abstract
Plato's Sophist and Statesman stand out from many other Platonic dialogues by at least two features. First, they do not raise a ti esti question about a single virtue or feature of something, but raise the questions what sophist, statesman, and philosopher are, how they differ from each other, and what worth each should be accorded. Second, a visitor from Elea, rather than Socrates, seeks to address these questions and does so by employing what is commonly referred to as the method of collection and division. Some scholars have argued that this so-called method is value neutral and therefore unable to address the question how philosophy differs from sophistry and statesmanship according to worth. This article contends that the procedures of collection and division does not preclude the visitor from taking considerations of worth into account, but rather helps establish an objective basis for settling the main questions of the dialogue.

Abstract
The digression of Plato's Theaetetus (172c2–177c2) is as celebrated as it is controversial. A particularly knotty question has been what status we should ascribe to the ideal of philosophy it presents, an ideal centered on the conception that true virtue consists in assimilating oneself as much as possible to god. For the ideal may seem difficult to reconcile with a Socratic conception of philosophy, and several scholars have accordingly suggested that it should be read as ironic and directed only at the dramatic character Theodorus. When interpreted with due attention to its dramatic context, however, the digression reveals that the ideal of godlikeness, while being directed at Theodorus, is essentially Socratic. The function of the passage is to introduce a contemplative aspect of the life of philosophy into the dialogue that contrasts radically with the political-practical orientation characteristic of Protagoras, an aspect Socrates is able to isolate as such precisely because he is conversing with the mathematician Theodorus.

Background: Physical comorbidities and substance use are commonly reported in patients with mental disorders. Aim: To examine somatic comorbidity in patients with substance use disorders (SUD) compared to patients with mental disorders but no SUD. Methods: Lifetime prevalence data on mental and physical health status were collected from inpatients in 12 mental health care facilities in five different countries. Differences in somatic comorbidity were examined by means of logistic regression analysis controlling for age and gender. Results: Of 2,338 patients, 447 (19%) had a primary or secondary SUD diagnosis. In comparison to patients with other mental disorders, patients with SUD had a higher prevalence of infectious and digestive diseases but a lower prevalence of endocrine, nutritional and metabolic disorders. Patterns of physical comorbidities differed according to type of substance used (alcohol use – cardiovascular; tobacco use – respiratory, neoplasms; cannabinoid use – injuries; opioid use – infectious, digestive; benzodiazepine use – endocrine, nutritional, metabolic; stimulants – urogenital). Conclusions: SUD are related to specific somatic health risks while some of our findings point to potentially protective effects. The widespread prescription of benzodiazepines requires research on physical health effects. Early detection of SUD and their integration into programmes targeting physical comorbidity should be a priority in organizing mental health care.

Background: Patients with a psychiatric illness have a higher prevalence of physical diseases and thus a higher morbidity and mortality. Aim: The main aim was to investigate where patients with co-occurring physical diseases and mental disorders (psychotic spectrum or mood) in the health and social service system are identified most frequently before admission into psychiatry. The second aim was to compare the differences in the treatment routes taken by the patients before entry into psychiatric services in all the participating countries (Denmark, Germany, Japan, Nigeria and Switzerland). Methodology: On admission to a psychiatric service, patients diagnosed with schizophrenia, schizotypal or delusional disorders (International Classification of Diseases-10 (ICD-10) group F2) or mood (affective) disorders (ICD-10 group F3) and a co-morbid physical condition (cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus and overweight) were asked with which institutions or persons they had been in contact with in the previous 6 months. Results: Patients from Denmark, Germany and Switzerland with mental disorders had almost the same contact pattern. Their primary contact was to public or private psychiatry, with a contact percentage of 46%–91%; in addition, general practice was a common contact, with a margin of 41%–93%. Similar tendencies are seen in Japan despite the small sample size. With regard to general practice, this is also the case with Nigerian patients. However, religious guidance or healing was rarely sought by patients in Europe and Japan, while in Nigeria about 80% of patients with mental disorders had contacted this type of service. Conclusion: Promoting prophylactic work between psychiatry and the general practice sector may be beneficial in diminishing physical conditions such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus and overweight in patients with mental disorders in European countries and Japan. In Nigeria (a low-to-middle-income country), religious guides or healers, along with general practitioners, are the most frequently contacted, and they therefore seem to be the most obvious partner to collaborate with.