u/Seungyeob1

Theory of Mind (ToM) refers to a hypothesized faculty presumed to enable a person to infer others' beliefs, intentions, and so on. In other words, someone whose empathic capacity is highly developed is regarded as having a highly developed ToM faculty. As a hypothesized faculty, ToM is posited either as a precondition for empathy, or empathic capacity is evaluated on the basis of ToM by appealing to the fact that communication breaks down when ToM is impaired.

However, this notion of ToM ought to be criticized from a philosophical standpoint. Myson of Chenae, one of the Seven Sages of ancient Greece, declared that one should not seek fact from speech (argument, logos), but should seek speech from fact—because facts do not exist in order to conform to speech; rather, speech exists in order to conform to fact. That is, argument ought to be derived from fact. Yet ToM first posits a hypothetical faculty called "Theory of Mind" and then schematically fits empathic capacity—which belongs to the domain of fact—onto that posited faculty. In this sense, ToM commits the error of judging empathic capacity on the basis of an antecedently assumed argument. Indeed, this error is borne out by the empathic capacity observed between autistic people in mutual interaction—people for whom this hypothesized faculty of ToM is said to be absent.

The so-called Double Empathy Problem is the theory that communication between two autistic individuals is, by comparison, not inferior to communication between two non-autistic individuals. Insofar as autistic people's empathic capacity is not premised on ToM, this provides grounds for dispensing with the hypothesized faculty that ToM presupposes. If the hypothesized faculty of ToM were truly absent in autistic individuals, then communication and empathy should fail even between two autistic people, since both parties would be equally "deficient." Yet the fact that communication between them proceeds smoothly indicates that it is unwarranted to posit ToM as a precondition for empathy.

In conclusion, the claim that ToM functions as a precondition for empathy is unpersuasive, since it amounts to deriving the fact of empathy from the argument (speech) of "Theory of Mind"—a schema in which speech precedes fact rather than the reverse. This conclusion is further supported by the Double Empathy Problem, which shows that mutual engagement between autistic individuals proceeds smoothly even though ToM, as a precondition, is not operative between them.

In South Korea, strict developmental history is required for autism spectrum disorder diagnosis. Specifically, it requires deficits in social communication, communicative reciprocity, and repetitive/stereotyped behaviors to have been present before the age of 3. The problem with this developmental-history requirement is that it places individuals in situations where it is practically difficult to prove developmental history—for instance, when the primary caregiver is unable to testify, or when daycare records are discarded five years after graduation.

Given this, we must philosophically examine whether this developmental-history requirement is justified. If autism spectrum disorder can be grasped rationally prior to being grasped empirically, then developmental history for autism spectrum disorder can be presumed. The representative argument for this can be drawn from Plato and extreme realism.

In the Laws and the Phaedrus, Plato declares that self-motion—that which moves itself—is the first cause of motion. If so, in the case of someone diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder in adulthood, it can be held that the person was already "moved" by autism from the prenatal period, such that by before age 3 this motion had already begun, and the symptoms of social interaction, communication, and stereotyped behavior that appeared after birth were merely the phenomenal expression of that motion. That is, rather than strictly adjudicating developmental disorder within the empirical domain of medicine, one can retroactively trace the origin of self-motion back to early childhood based on the presence of current symptoms alone, even absent documented developmental history—thereby presumptively establishing developmental history for autism spectrum disorder. On this basis, the administrative authority's demand for developmental history lacks validity.

Now, let us consider the case where the symptoms of autism spectrum disorder have become partially concealed after the person reaches adulthood. Here it suffices to argue that developmental disability pre-exists and subsists prior to autism—that is, autism is a specific differentia (species) that exists under the genus of developmental disability. In this framework, the changing modes of symptoms—belonging to the visible realm and to Heraclitean flux (panta rhei)—constitute autism spectrum disorder as a disorder. Prior to this, and universally pre-existing and really subsisting, is developmental disability as a Disability, which belongs to the intelligible realm: unmoving, unchanging, unborn and undying, indivisible. On these grounds, notwithstanding fluctuations in the mode of symptoms, developmental disability is argued to exist permanently. That is, changes in the mode of symptoms belong strictly to the visible realm, whereas in the unchanging, unmoving intelligible realm, developmental disability subsists permanently and with priority—such that no one can be divested of developmental disability.

In conclusion, regarding the administrative authority's demand for developmental history: if autism is traced back to self-motion as the first cause, developmental history before age 3 can be presumed. This is not the empirical discipline of medicine but rather, within the institutional framework of rights remedy (權利救濟), a rational method of inference through reason. Even if the symptoms of developmental disability become concealed in adulthood, developmental disability still pre-exists as a being of the intelligible realm—and therefore, deprivation of status or denial of registration based on the mode of symptoms is impermissible.

A possible objection to this argument, from the standpoint of medicine, would be that it is improper to retroactively presume developmental history on the basis of a psychiatric condition that merely resembles autism spectrum disorder and only became apparent after the person reached adulthood. However, this objection does not hold, because it does not exclude the possibility that autism spectrum disorder may co-occur with comorbid conditions—and, insofar as autism constitutes the essential attribute (substance) while any comorbid condition constitutes merely an accidental attribute (accident), it is justified to retroactively presume developmental history in cases where autism spectrum disorder is the primary condition. For this reason, the anticipated objection from the medical community is not valid. Furthermore, the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder relies on the ADI-R (Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised), a diagnostic interview instrument. In the case of adults, this requires reliance on parents' memories from 20–30 years earlier. Given this, it cannot be said that present-day diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder—together with the philosophical reasoning set out above—is inferior to parents' faint and error-prone recollections.

A further possible objection is as follows: given that developmental disability is the genus and autism spectrum disorder is its species (differentia), if the characteristic features of autism spectrum disorder undergo such severe quantitative change in the visible realm that they become completely concealed, then although the genus persists, the species—autism spectrum disorder—no longer applies. However, from the standpoint of essence and phenomenon, the concealment of the manifestation of autism spectrum disorder is merely an illusory appearance (假現象), a semblance; in reality, autism spectrum disorder is not cured, and its distinctive characteristics continue to be retained. Therefore, the species continues to subsist under the genus of developmental disability. Therefore, insofar as autism spectrum disorder, as a species, exists eternally and self-subsistently under developmental disability as its genus, it is philosophically impermissible to divest a person of their status on the grounds of a change in phenomenal appearance.

Regarding autism spectrum disorder, there are cases where so-called "therapists" exploit the desperation of parents to conduct pseudo-scientific treatments. Examples include chelation therapy, excessive dietary restrictions, severe diets, and the use of cold, wet blankets. These parents' motivation lies in the fact that, given society's lack of autism-friendliness, they sought by any means to help their children adapt to mainstream society. It is precisely this sentiment that so-called therapists have exploited. However, it is a fact that autism spectrum disorder manifests before the age of three, and there is no medication that cures autism.

Hippocrates declared: ". . . the fruit of medicine is obtained through conclusions clearly grounded in fact. Speaking persuasively with a sweet tongue is likely to be false and inappropriate. If we wish to attain stability in the medical art, we must strive to observe the totality of how things arise, and must never neglect the effort to stay close to the truth of things" (Hippocrates, On the Physician's Mindset, Section 2). In other words, Hippocrates emphasized that medicine must stay close to the truth of things. Medicine must pursue truth in the sense of accurate facts about disease—not a physician's personal opinion, nor the lectures of so-called "show doctors" who appear on television.

In particular, Myson, one of the Seven Sages of Greece, declared that one should not seek facts from words (logos), but should seek words from facts. This is because facts do not exist to conform to words; rather, words exist to conform to facts. For example, given the fact that autism spectrum disorder is a developmental disability that arises before the age of three, if one seeks words from facts, the argument becomes: "therefore, autism cannot be completely cured." By contrast, if one presupposes the words "autism can be completely cured," a false argument is constructed by schematizing the facts to conform to the claim that "autism is healed."

Indeed, the United Nations has stated in a report that chelation therapy for autistic children is potentially dangerous (A/HRC/43/41). It has ordered the cancellation of treatments aimed at converting autistic individuals into non-autistic individuals (CRPD/C/FRA/CO/1). It has recommended prohibiting all forms of forced psychiatric treatment inflicted on autistic people in institutions, including restraint therapy, drug-induced restraint, solitary confinement, and electric shock (CRPD/C/EU/CO/2-3). It has ordered the prohibition of the practice of covering autistic children with cold, wet blankets (CRPD/C/CHE/CO/1). And it has recommended regulating sleep deprivation, extreme dieting, the use of buckets placed over the head, and the use of restraint jackets inflicted at private treatment centers (CRPD/C/PER/CO/2-3).

In other words, from the standpoint of medicine and international law, the premise that must be established is that autism cannot be completely cured. Because autism spectrum disorder arises congenitally before the age of three, and because it is practically impossible to fully identify the countless genetic factors and causal mechanisms involved, establishing this premise leaves no room for pseudo-treatments to occur.

In conclusion, with regard to autism spectrum disorder, false treatments are widespread, exploiting the desperation of parents. This must be understood as a departure from Hippocrates' medical art and Myson's pursuit of facts, and as treatment that the United Nations has recognized as harmful to autistic people. In the end, such treatments only cause harm to autistic individuals.

Pythagoras, in a conversation with Leon, the tyrant of Sicyon, in Sicyon, said that no one is wise except god, and from this, philosophy is said to have originated. Thales, meanwhile, said that the oldest of all existing things is god, because god was never born. Thales spoke of a world full of divine spirits, and Bias of Priene said of the gods that they exist. Pittacus of Mytilene even dedicated to the gods the land that the Mytileneans had given him. Heraclitus said that just as a child is scolded by an adult, so an adult is scolded before god, and Parmenides declared that the one greatest god, among gods and men, is not at all similar in form or thought to mortal beings. Socrates, for his part, offered sacrifice to the god he believed in, and Cicero, in On the Ends of Good and Evil (De Finibus), declared that knowledge of the gods must come first, followed by the cultivation of reason, the mistress of all things.

In other words, philosophy in its classical sense must be understood as first a doctrine of god (theology), and only afterward a worldview. This is because, in ancient philosophy, one first established a doctrine of god, and then, on that foundation, explained the world.

This tendency is further strengthened in medieval patristic philosophy and in Scripture. Western philosophers, by speaking of "the gods" or "among the gods," leaned closer to polytheism or henotheism. Yet, in the West, no one was able to properly resolve the ontological difficulty of what it means to exist of oneself (self-existence). In particular, regarding the doctrine of god, Theagenes is said to have offered an allegorical interpretation of mythology, revealing it as representing the opposition among the elements.

In response to this, special revelation—the sixty-six books of Scripture—shows, through Exodus 3:14, "I AM WHO I AM" (the LORD), that the LORD already existed of Himself before the creation of the universe; and through the declaration that "in the beginning was the Logos," it shows that the incarnate Lord Jesus Christ is the Truth (John 14:6). Proverbs 9:10's declaration that "the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom" ultimately shows, in summary form, that to know the One who exists of Himself is itself wisdom and understanding.

Therefore, when asking what philosophy is, one must begin, ontologically, with belief in the LORD God alone, for it is the LORD who has existed of Himself from before the foundation of the world (before the creation of the universe). Only on the premise of this ontology can one achieve the completion of philosophy—by believing in the creation recorded in Genesis, in the history of redemption as the work of the Triune God (the pouring out of the Spirit in Joel 2:28, and the Spirit whom the Father will send in the Son's name in John 14:26), and in God who is Three Persons. For God, who is one in essence (ousia) yet distinct in role as three hypostases, or persons (personae), has transcended the limits of philosophy (e.g., the indivisible One of Parmenides and Melissus).

Piaget and Vygotsky are the two towering figures of developmental psychology. The former proposed a view of development centered on the primacy of thought, comprising four stages corresponding to age, while the latter emphasized thinking through language and argued that learners could perform higher-level tasks through a zone of proximal development with the help of a competent teacher or peer. Piaget schematized development into four stages: the sensorimotor stage, the preoperational stage, the concrete operational stage, and finally the formal operational stage. Vygotsky, for his part, proposed syncretic thinking and a preoperational stage as precursors to conceptual thought. Among them, Piaget held that Kant's transcendental epistemology was not innately fixed, but rather gradually constructed through interaction with the environment over the course of development. One notable limitation, however, is that Piaget did not propose any stage of development beyond the formal operational stage. Vygotsky schematized development into syncretic thinking (imagistic thinking), preconceptual thinking, and conceptual thinking — yet this framework has been criticized on the grounds that it was designed to reshape particular ethnic groups into the universal Soviet human type within the specific context of the Soviet Union.

When examining the foundations of their theories, Piaget viewed Kant's transcendental epistemology as something gradually constructed through environmental interaction; however, Kant's fixed categorical claims — such as the assertion that the sum of the interior angles of a triangle equals 180 degrees — were later challenged by counterexamples from non-Euclidean geometry. Furthermore, if development were to proceed solely along Piaget's lines, the formal operational stage would result in nothing more than a quantitative accumulation of abstract and logical thinking. Yet when one looks at the history of human intellect — as in the case of Thales, who spent time with Egyptian priests and, without receiving instruction from anyone, posited water as the fundamental principle of all things, followed by the transition to Anaxagoras's spermata (the seeds of all things) and nous (the absolute reason that moves those seeds) — it becomes clear that the quantitative accumulation of thought always eventually produces qualitative transformation, much like the changing of the arche of all things. In this respect, the limitation of Piaget's framework, which posits no stage beyond formal operations, is stark.

In Vygotsky's case, competent teachers or peers are presupposed as the agents of learning, which reveals a fundamental limitation when it comes to self-directed, autonomous education. Vygotsky established the concept of scaffolding as a zone in which learners are propelled forward by the educator's instruction, a process that he saw as becoming internalized. If one strictly adheres to Vygotsky's theory, learners must learn according to the methods prescribed by educators — and for the illiterate or ethnic minorities, the framework of syncretic or preconceptual thinking inevitably produces a regressive educational outlook. Yet in the history of philosophy, Myson of Chen — one of the Seven Sages of Greece — declared that one should not seek facts from words, but words from facts, for facts do not exist to conform to words; rather, words exist to conform to facts. Unlike Vygotsky, he placed facts above language, and yet demonstrated high-order conceptual thinking despite being illiterate. Meanwhile, it was Hippasus who made a genuine leap in existing thought by discovering the square root of 2 — and he did so not through scaffolding or a zone of proximal development, but through his own independent discovery, for which he was reportedly drowned. This suggests that Vygotsky's educational philosophy risks becoming, at worst, a form of totalitarianism.

Ultimately, both Piaget and Vygotsky proposed frameworks of development, but when it comes to the question of which model of development is objectively valid, the history of philosophy compels us to proceed with caution. Cases such as Heraclitus — who refused the citizens of Ephesus' request to draft laws and instead played knucklebones with children in the temple of Artemis — and Diogenes the Cynic — who refuted Zeno's theory of motion and Plato through direct action — cannot be dismissed as cases of regression.

"If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" (John 3:12), and "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34).

Within this context, emphasis is placed on those who do evil in darkness and fear being exposed (John 3:20), and on the reality that one is hated in the name of Jesus (Matthew 24:9; 10:22; Mark 13:13). Yet those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ receive the Helper, the Holy Spirit (John 14:26).

That is, because the Lord Jesus Christ is Himself the Truth as one Person (John 14:6), the world inevitably moves toward the rejection of that Truth. This connects directly to the incident in which Paul, upon teaching at the temple of Artemis that things made by human hands are not gods, triggered a great uproar at the temple of Artemis in Ephesus (Acts 19:23–41).

Meanwhile, both the world's rejection of the Lord Jesus Christ — the Truth who is one and self-sufficient — and Paul's proclamation of the Gospel at Artemis find a prefiguration within the history of philosophy.

Heraclitus declared that foolish people grow excited at any logos. He withdrew to the temple of Artemis and spent his time playing dice with children. When the citizens of Ephesus gathered around him, he said: "You most wicked men — why are you surprised? Is it not better to do this than to share in civic life with you?"

In other words, the proclamation that "In the beginning was the Logos" (John 1:1) had been imperfectly prefigured beforehand through Heraclitus's concept of the logos. When the citizens of Ephesus — behaving like zealots — demanded the enactment of civic decrees at the temple of Artemis, Heraclitus refused by instead playing with children.

In this respect, the Lord Jesus Christ's words — "Do not forbid the children from coming to me" — together with His prophecy of the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, must be understood as a prefiguration of the Christian life set apart from the world (Matthew 5:13–16). For just as Heraclitus refused to compromise with the world through things like the enactment of Ephesian decrees, so too does "do not forbid the children" prefigure that same refusal.

Furthermore, the very fact that Paul was obstructed while proclaiming the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is itself a prefiguration of Heraclitus's image as one who stirred the logos in the face of opposition. By proclaiming not relative human wisdom but the Lord Jesus Christ as absolute Truth, the philosophy of Heraclitus finds its completion — brought to its absolute, perfect, and infallible Antitype — in the 66 books of the Bible.

In John 19:25–27, the Lord Jesus Christ entrusts His mother, the Virgin Mary, to the disciple John while on the cross. That is, the Lord Jesus Christ demonstrated His love for His mother in the midst of His atoning death and resurrection. This passage is also connected to 1 Timothy 5:8, which states that anyone who does not provide for his own relatives, and especially his own household, is worse than an unbeliever.

Prior to the completion of the 66 books of the Bible, there existed within general revelation a foreshadowing of the love that the Lord Jesus Christ showed to the Virgin Mary, as well as of the duty to care for one's family. This foreshadowing is found in the passage where Socrates admonishes his eldest son Lamprocles: "Your parents brought you into existence out of nothing, and allowed you to behold all the beautiful things that the gods have given to mankind, and to share in all their good things… Do you not think that you ought to honor your mother, who loves you more than anything?" (Memorabilia, Book 2, Chapter 2, verses 3 and 13).

Thus, Western philosophical tradition had already declared the honoring of one's mother as a matter of great importance. This is ultimately completed in the act of the Lord Jesus Christ entrusting the Virgin Mary to John — for even the Lord Jesus Christ Himself demonstrated both the Old Testament commandment to honor one's parents and the love of Christ. This is particularly significant in the process by which the Gospel moved from the Jewish people to the Gentiles, powerfully conveying to the Greeks and to all Gentile believers alike that honoring one's mother is an imperative duty.

Meanwhile, in the history of Eastern philosophy, the concept of filial piety toward parents is similarly present. In Confucius's Analects, the expression gyeonmajiyyang (犬馬之養) teaches that providing for one's parents in a merely material sense is no different from feeding dogs or horses. This, too, served as a foreshadowing of John 19:25–27 — for the Lord Jesus Christ did not merely supply material provision to His mother, but entrusted her to His most beloved disciple with sincere and heartfelt love. In this way, even the Eastern concept of filial piety is brought to completion through the Lord Jesus Christ.

In conclusion, the general revelation that one ought to care for and honor one's parents existed as an imperfect foreshadowing in the figures of Socrates in Western philosophy and Confucius in Eastern philosophy. That foreshadowing finds its completion in the public ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ — specifically in His act of entrusting His mother to John immediately before His atoning death and resurrection, as recorded in the 66 books of Special Revelation.

The Lord Jesus Christ declared, "The kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these" (Matthew 18:3), referring to little children. He also said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them" (Mark 10:14; Matthew 19:14). In other words, the Lord Jesus Christ made it clear that the kingdom of heaven can only be entered by those who are pure like little children and who humble themselves.

This teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ had a very imperfect foreshadowing before His time. Among the philosophers, Heraclitus declared, "Just as a child is rebuked by an adult, so an adult is rebuked before God." Notably, when the citizens of Ephesus asked him to draft laws for them, Heraclitus refused and withdrew to the Temple of Artemis, where he played knucklebones with children, saying to the Ephesians: "Is it not better to do this than to share in the governance of the city with you?"

This suggests that for Heraclitus, both children and adults were ultimately imperfect beings. Among the foreshadowings, this was observed in the Pharisees — they lived under the elementary principles of the Law, and were thus found to be in the same condition as the citizens of Ephesus. Meanwhile, the act of playing with children finds its typological fulfillment in the Lord Jesus Christ laying hands on children in prayer, healing a child who threw himself into fire and water (Matthew 17; Mark 9; Luke 9), and expressing righteous indignation toward the Pharisees, calling them a brood of vipers. Thus, the type is brought to completion.

In the end, the truth that just as a child is rebuked by an adult, so an adult is rebuked before God, is perfectly and fully fulfilled through the public ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ and the entirety of the sixty-six books of the Bible.

In developmental psychology, autism is often viewed as developmental delay or developmental disability, with practitioners focusing heavily on rehabilitation and social skills therapy. However, before applying such treatments, we must first examine whether the developmental tasks defined by developmental psychology are themselves justified — because if those developmental tasks are unjust, then projecting them onto autistic individuals, who are among the most vulnerable, and subjecting them to treatment based on those tasks constitutes a violation of the rights of the vulnerable.

Piaget viewed developmental tasks as a process beginning with object recognition through the senses in the sensorimotor stage, continuing through the cultivation of abstract thinking in the preoperational and concrete operational stages, and culminating in the completion of logical reasoning in the formal operational stage. According to Piaget's perspective, instruction must align with these developmental tasks. Vygotsky, in turn, presupposes the existence of a more capable other, and through the Zone of Proximal Development, holds that tasks not yet mastered can be resolved with the assistance of a teacher or more competent peer — consistently maintaining a social constructivist view that human beings grow within society.

These two theories share the common premise of a necessary other. However, it must be criticized that there is no basis for assuming this other to be entirely infallible. As Heraclitus remarked — just as a child is rebuked by an adult, so too is an adult rebuked before a god — we must bear in mind that educators, being human, cannot be wholly without fault.

Furthermore, while both Piaget and Vygotsky articulate developmental tasks, and thus presuppose a linear trajectory of development, the history of human thought cautions us that intellectual development has never proceeded in a straight, linear fashion. Consider Thales, who declared water to be the substance of all things and whose entire education consisted of living with Egyptian priests — receiving no formal instruction from others; Heraclitus, who refused the citizens of Ephesus' request to draft their laws and instead played dice at the temple of Artemis; Archimedes, who refused an audience with Marcellus and was killed by a Roman soldier while absorbed in geometric inquiry; Hippasus, according to tradition executed within the Pythagorean school after discovering the square root of two; Anaxagoras, who was exiled for declaring the sun to be a burning mass of rock; and Socrates, who was executed by the ignorant masses. These figures pursued truth — much like the recollection described in Plato's Meno — through solitary inquiry, and chose truth-seeking and even execution over the developmental tasks of social cooperation or the kind of social life such as employment that is expected after the formal operational stage. This demonstrates that there is no ontological basis for assuming linear development to be universal.

On the contrary, Plato's Phaedrus and Laws emphasize self-motion, and the theory of recollection in the Meno holds that learning is the process of recalling what has already been known. In this light, developmental psychology — which presupposes the other and inculcates into individuals the prevailing opinions (doxa) of a schematized, normative social environment — deserves to be criticized.

In light of all this, the legitimacy of developmental psychology is further empirically undermined by the experiment of Little Albert, in which a single infant was sacrificed as a generalization in order to apply conditioned reflexes to human beings, and by the case of Genie Wiley, whose language never developed due to severe paternal abuse.

In conclusion, developmental psychology as applied to autistic individuals must first be questioned on grounds of legitimacy: it presupposes the other and thereby impedes the self-motion of recollection and independent inquiry; educators themselves, being human, cannot be wholly infallible; intellectual history shows no consistent linear progression of the kind developmental psychology assumes; and the discipline has committed empirical transgressions of its own. In light of all these considerations, any attempt to blindly label or judge autistic individuals through the lens of developmental psychology must be regarded as unjust.