Abstract

Among the many strengths of the article by Lorenzo Gilardi and Giovanni Stanghellini one can find its open-ended character most directly reflected by the fact that these are "questions for further research," rather than a set of definitive theses, that are provided as concluding remarks. But it is not the mere occurrence of such a setting that is crucial. After all, even if somewhat atypical, the latter does happen to be used in scholarly literature. What makes the open-endedness of the article and its somehow dialogical flavor so important is these features' full continuity with the method of dialectical psychopathology proposed. The form and the content, in other words, go hand in hand.As far as formal...