Abstract

In this rebuttal to the interventions by Francesetti (2025) and Griffero (2025), Santamato (2025) on the one hand clarifies his positions regarding atmospherology and the emotional externalism that paradigmatically constitutes it, and on the other he acknowledges some of the criticisms. This response is structured in two parts: in the first part, the discussion on emotional externalism is revisited, reaffirming Santamato’s (2025) positions through an anti-critique of the anti-critique (Griffero, 2025); in the second part, while addressing some of the criticisms directed at an atmospherological psychiatry, the discourse on an atmospherological clinical practice is revisited and expanded.