in
their presence. If these measures fail, coercion if necessary.
Tranquillizing chair. Strait waistcoat. Pour cold water down their
sleeves. The shower bath for fifteen or twenty minutes. Threaten them
with death. Chains seldom and the whip never required. Twenty to forty
ounces of blood, unless fainting occurs previously; ... etc."

To-day an understanding of the life history, of the patient's somatic
and functional assets and problems, likes and dislikes, the problem
presented by the family, etc.!

So much for the change within and for psychiatry. How about psychiatry's
contribution beyond its own narrower sphere? It has led us on in
philosophy, it has brought about changes in our attitude to ethics, to
social study, to religion, to law, and to life in general. Psychiatric
work has undoubtedly intensified the hunger for a more objective and yet
melioristic and really idealistic philosophical conception of reality,
such as has been formulated in the modern concept of integration.

Philosophical tradition, logic, and epistemology alike had all conspired
to make as great a puzzle as possible of the nature of mental life, of
life itself, and of all the fundamental principles, so much so that as
a result anything resembling or suggesting philosophy going beyond the
ordinary traditions has got into poor repute in our colleges and
universities and among those of practical intelligence. The consequence
is that the student and the physician are apt to be hopeless and
indifferent concerning any effort at orderly thinking on these
problems.[3]

Most of us grew up with the attitude of a fatalistic intellectual
hopelessness. How could we ever be clear on the relation of mind and
body? How could mind and soul ever arise out of matter? How can we
harmonize strict science with what we try to do in our treatment of
patients? How can we, with our mechanistic science, speak of effort, and
of will to do better? How can we meet the invectives against the facts
of matter on the part of the opposing idealistic philosophies and their
uncritical exploitations in "New Thought"--_i.e._, really the revival of
archaic thought? It is not merely medical usefulness that forced these
broad issues on many a thinking physician, but having to face the facts
all the time in dealing with a living human world. The psychopathologist
had to learn to do more than the so-called "elementalist" who always
goes back to the elements and smallest units and the