Some notes on a historical perspective of panic disorder

This article aims to describe important points in the history of panic disorder concept, as well as to highlight the importance of its diagnosis for clinical and research developments. Panic disorder has been described in several literary reports and folklore. One of the oldest examples lies in Greek mythology - the god Pan, responsible for the term panic. The first half of the 19th century witnessed the culmination of medical approach. During the second half of the 19th century came the psychological approach of anxiety. The 20th century associated panic disorder to hereditary, organic and psychological factors, dividing anxiety into simple and phobic anxious states. Therapeutic development was also observed in psychopharmacological and psychotherapeutic fields. Official classifications began to include panic disorder as a category since the third edition of the American Classification Manual (1980). Some biological theories dealing with etiology were widely discussed during the last decades of the 20th century. They were based on laboratory studies of physiological, cognitive and biochemical tests, as the false suffocation alarm theory and the fear network. Such theories were important in creating new diagnostic paradigms to modern psychiatry. That suggests the need to consider a wide range of historical variables to understand how particular features for panic disorder diagnosis have been developed and how treatment has emerged.

DEVELOPMENT OF LOGIC IN INDIA: SIGNIFICANCE OF 'THE DUOLOGUE BETWEEN PĀYĀSI AND KASSAPA' ("LONG DISCOURSES")

ABSTRACT 'The Duologue of King/Governor Pāyāsi' ("Long Discourses") has long been recognised as a source for the proto-materialism current at the time of the Buddha. What needs to be stressed is the significance of the text as a pointer to the development of Logic in India. Perception (observation and experiment employing the joint method of agreement and difference), which is an accepted method of experimental enquiry, and reasoning from analogy, which can lead at best to a probable conclusion - these two are the only means employed to settle the dispute concerning the existence of the other-world. The Jain version of the same duologue-cum-parable, though varying in minor details regarding the name and identity of the monk refuting the king/governor, contains the same contrast, namely, perception versus analogical reasoning. There can be little doubt that the original parable was conceived with a view to asserting the existence of the other-world. In the Kaṭha Upaniṣad (sixth century BCE), an earlier Brahmanical text, however, instead of argument by analogy, verbal testimony (śabda) was invoked to settle the same point. Naciketas is assailed by doubt about the existence of a person after his or her death. The authority of Yama, the Pluto of Indian mythology, is invoked to convince him that the other-world does exist. Thus, the three parables taken together exhibit three means of knowledge in operation: verbal testimony and argument by analogy pitted against perception.