Abstract:Since its beginnings psychiatry controversely debated about the appropriate concept of illness, about nosology and the diagnostic terms and procedures based upon it. This paper discusses the approaches introduced by Emil Kraepelin (1856–1926), Karl Jaspers (1883–1969) and Arthur Kronfeld (1886–1941). Whereas Kraepelin postulated the existence of «natural entities» with regard to mental illness, Jaspers acknowledged the heuristic value of the term «disease entity», but declared it a «regulative idea» in a Kantian sense, i.e. an appropriate and useful, albeit never fully achievable aim. Kronfeld, in a way situated «between» Kraepelin and Jaspers, defended the notion of disease entities. However, he spoke clearly against primarily anchoring these entities in neighbouring scientific fields like neurobiology or social sciences. Psychiatry should stay (or become) «autological», in the first place using the psychological perspective. In full respect for neighbouring approaches as scientific fields in their own right, he rejected their premature transfer to mental phenomena as «heterological», i.e. as unduly narrowing down the scope of psychiatry. These issues, up to debate 100 years ago, still are of utmost relevance for psychiatry in the 21st century, a field struggling with its rather fragile scientific identity.

What kind of «thing» is mental illness? Listening to Kraepelin, Jaspers and Kronfeld