Karl Jaspers claimed that 'Delusions proper' could not be sufficiently understood in this phenomenological empathetic way, but can only be understood with non-phenomenological methods. Matthew Ratcliffe with his approach of 'radical empathy' questions the boundaries of intelligibility that Jaspers claimed.

In this essay I first explain Jaspers view on the role of a phenomenological approach in psychiatry and especially its possibilities and limits regarding primary delusions. I then show Ratcliffe's critique on Jaspers claim of the phenomenological unintelligibility of such experiences, and his approach of radical empathy, with which he expands the limits of phenomenological and empathic understanding. I conclude by comparing their views of empathy and and discussing the general intelligibility of others experiences and its consequences.