Someone is said to have a "something" (in this case, 'schizophrenia').If this be accepted then he becomes a "something" (in this case, a 'schizophrenic').
What he has been said to have is a word, of uncertain meaning (by what you can find in the literature on the subject. If you do not believe me please simply check it out).1
This word (term) has been sometimes applied to varieties of such phenomena as hallucinations, illusions, (sometimes to anything "abnormal").
That such phenomena did or do occur is a matter of the human records ; what to do with them or about them is another question altogether.
The term in question had been coined by Eugene Bleuler ; it seems he was at times touching upon some real issues. Had he produced some actual science of such a subject ?
I do not mean only to criticise, any and all such attempts. But it looks like E. Bleuler had started on something, had never quite understood himself what exactly he was hitting at, and nobody after him had (some exceptions known to me are based on other premises than Bleuler's).
The apparent facts of any such cases are : someone has in some circumstances been said he has a "something".
What he presenatly has is an idea of having a "something" (which is a word of uncertain meaning).
This alone creates an additional problem for the individual (who may have had some real problems).
The consequences could range from spontaneuous remission to horror stories.
A remission of exactly what ? This had never been clear, anyway. It could be that the fellow was just lucky enough not to find himself subjected to any sort of "medical care" too intensive.
WPT, May 08.
1. Sooner or later one would come across some "hard" words on the scientific subjects, the meanings of which may have to be clarified. However, so far as I have seen any literature could be accepted as scientific, the first principles (basic premises) are invariably stated in the works by the several authors, usually at or near the beginning of the scientific texts (e.g by Descartes, Newton, Clerk Maxwell, etc.)
If there are no first principles, no sorts of basic principles stated in some intelligible way, even to the layman, in a text then it is not science one faces but either somebody's delusion or somebody's plain imposture.