No philosopher ever got accused of TDS™

You can't pathologize a syllogism. "Derangement syndrome" is a diagnosis weaponized to dodge the argument — a way to answer criticism by calling the critic sick instead of meeting the point. But the label only sticks to feeling; it has nothing to grab when the critique is built from the record and the reasoning. A philosopher — anyone who argues from principle and cites the receipt — is immune, because there's no animus to caricature, only an argument to refute. And refuting is exactly the work the label exists to skip. Calling reasoned dissent a syndrome is itself the tell: pathologize the critic so you never have to score the record. Kin: ad hominem, pre-empted, the Tell, the Record Is the Arbiter, the Defense of the Devil's Advocate. (His coin — about the rhetorical move, not a diagnosis of anyone; machine's read, refine to his.)