>By no means. The adjective applies to a common symptom shared
>by a number of conditions which have quite different nature. Would
>you want to group together all illnesses characterized by fever.
>That is *exactly* what you are doing if you use the term "psychosis"
>as the name of an illness. You name innumerable mental condtions
>that are unrelated in structure and in cause.
Did you read the DSM passage? Generally, the common feature of psychoses - not an illness, but a grouping of them - is some serious disturbance in the psychotic's sense of reality. Neurotics suffer, but they still can tell the real from the unreal: they don't hear voices that aren't there, or imagine plots against them that don't exist.
Many different diseases are called "cancers." Leukemias are different from solid tumors; solid tumors can be single or dispersed. Should we stop using that term too? There are many different kinds of leukemias, too. Should we stop using that term as well?
>Or since both you
>and Bob Avakian dislike Clinton I can call you an Avakianist.
Yeah, but I'm not a Maoist, and I don't particularly admire Stalin nor Sendero Luminoso, so your analogy doesn't work too well.
Doug