Well, this article somehow irrationally bothered me.
Common notions of mental disorder remain only elaborations of ‘error’, conceived of in the language of ‘internal dysfunction’ relative to a mechanistic world devoid of any meaning and influence. These dysfunctions are either to be cured by psychopharmacology, or remedied by therapy meant to lead the patient to rediscover ‘objective truth’ of the world. To conceive of it in this way is not only simplistic, but highly biased.
Maybe it was this part, because I don't know if this is or is not a "common notion." It is, however, to me a serious error to suppose that anyone holds "objective truth." I think, and maybe I have just been reading too much physics stuff lately, but any "truth" or "objectivity" will be
relative as a matter of necessity.
So, what one should be doing is offering
perspective. My loosely associated mind jumps to Sartre's sort of example, where we meet someone who believes he is Napoleon Bonaparte. One would, of course, be tempted to say, this person is obviously wrong, because it is the year 2019, the facts are simply against this. And so, indeed, in a sense, we can enforce the perspective of this "facticity" to display that this person's "error." But this is a biased perspective all the same, because, as Sartre is apt to point out, because we are saying that the "facts" trump this person's experience and attempt at transcendence of mere facts.
Of course, though, not all perspectives are "equal" that would be a silly statement. But bias is still bias. We might be "biased" toward facticity over trancendance, but that does not mean it must be the case that we should always be.
But maybe I am off the rails...