The Sanity Principle: Judging a Philosophy on its Outcome for one who holds it

Nathan Hakimi
December 6, 2011

The Sanity Principle:
Implications of Psychological Evidence on Philosophical Postulation

tags: psychology, philosophy, metaphysics, consciousness, religion, mysticism, psychosis, sanity, delusion, harmony

Who is psychotic?  Basically a "malfunctioning machine".  On the behavioral level we observe this without any special insight into the contents of the patient's mind.  Yes, the psyche can be tested.  Speech gives a window to the mind's contents, as do dreams.  Nonetheless I imagine that as common-folk psychologists we constantly evaluate each other's "level" on simply instinctive bases, noticing the moves that each other make in terms of social reactions, professional action, and the like.

Nonetheless we typically define "insanity" by assessing the logic of an individual's beliefs.  Someone claims that they are being hunted by ninja-wolves who live in the attic, and we call them paranoid schizophrenics.

But there is a subtler logic to who is healthy psychologically and who is off-base, and it does not involve extreme forms of irrational belief like paranoia or delusions.  Constantly we evaluate and notice people's mental states by assessing in "Blink"-esque moments things about a person's behavior: body language, tone and rhythm of speech, choice of diction, etc.  These are empirical grounds for assessing inner healthiness of a psyche.

Is it possible that a philosophy, deeply held, can manifest in the attitudes and stances one takes in daily social interaction?  Can we evaluate the healthiness of a ground-level belief by the way in which it manifests behaviorally?

If so, does a philosopher have any business eliminating ideas which, when tried in the testing-grounds of reality, lead to faulty or undesirable social and emotional states?

That is, can psychological facts have any bearing on philosophical truths?

I think so.

Consider the following famous philosophical issues:
-Agency/Will
-Consciousness
-Epistemology
-etc

One might intellectually hold an actual belief that:
-No one and nothing exists but me and my consciousness (solipsism)
-I am a machine with only an illusion of choice (determinism)
-It is impossible to assent ultimately to any beliefs conclusively (skepticism)


I submit that:
-If it is possible to abide deeply by a belief and live out healthy life - then it is a tenable belief
-If a belief leads to undesirable states of being, then this is not a justifiable philosophical belief

In other words, evidence in the social and emotional realm could actually be used to assess intellectual theories.  It suggests that there is a deep connection between philosophy, logic, sociality, and psychology.

Please look at the following article for an example of how this could come into play: http://www.consciousentities.com/?p=100


Consider how this could play out with the following examples of commonly held justifiable beliefs:
-life after death
-capitalism vs socialism
-darwinism
-narcissism
-utilitarianism
-the kantian "moral imperative"
-hedonism/nihilism
-rationalist skepticism

Personally I find that one who holds a solid set of beliefs can be defended not because the beliefs are logically sound or unsound, but rather because these beliefs make the one who holds them a good person.

If you think that is an undefinable construct, read over and think again.  My point is that we are all judges of each other and I have an inkling that what people instinctively "like" socially and intellectually is ultimately the best judge of what is valid.  Hence the entire human world and social sphere is the determinant of truth: not logical assessment in a vaccuum.

Becoming Committed to G_D and Not Alienating My Family Who Do Not Know Him

It is difficult, I am in a difficult position.  I am constantly navigating what I believe and know to be true inside, with what I think I am able to effectively communicate to people.  Oftentimes what I can adequately explain has less to do with my ability to say exactly what I mean, than it does with what people have been potentiated to comprehend, and at what level they will intake what I have said.  Some things should not be interpreted by the level of consciousness most people have been conditioned to function on most if not all of the time.  To this mind, much what is spoken about Allah is nonsense.  All alone.

Nonetheless, I feel like I am going to make it out ok in the end.  All this change has taken place in quite a slim span of time.  Given that fact I should actually be amazed and glad how well people I am close to have adapted to and "kept up with" the change.  My mom is still undoubtedly skeptical, if not deeply so and moreover somewhat disturbed, but again I think it is part of the process.  Hopefully we reach a point where at the very least they know I am not crazy.  I do not expect anybody else to become orthodox (in the strictest sense of the word - which means merely "strict") (no pun intended) in their religious practice.  Moreover I wish they would stop viewing what I am doing as "becoming Orthodox", as is, "Jewish Orthodox", which is not a particular way of accessing G_D, at least in their minds, but rather a somewhat cult-like community of people who do not accept their society, their philosophy, or worst of all their claim to Jewishness.  It is flagrantly untrue that my family's Jewishness is rejected by the orthodox.  More importantly, it is necessary to really pick apart the differences in outlook, practice, community, and philosophy to really detangle and see what they are doing and why and come to terms with it.  It is extremely frustrating and alienating to me when they say derogatory and dismissive things about the community I am trying, if not to join, then to emulate in certain respects.

Honestly, the thing about this whole thing is, I constantly feel like I have to be careful not to alienate people, especially my own family, which means I have to be able to explain things to them, but by explaining things, it includes an aspect of condescension, which is also alienating.  The fact is, I do feel like I know something they don't!  At least, I have fully accepted something which they do seem to know at some level but do not like to express with quite so much openness and explicitness as I do.  My mom published a beautiful d'var which I found a copy of not long ago and re-read, speaking about Hashem and His relationship with the Children of Israel, and while she did ultimately make it about psychological insights (which was fine and good), she included a number of statement which indicated that she understands the close connection we share with the Divine, which I might add has been so thoroughly validated and proven, time and time again throughout history, that it is logically speaking, quite likely to be actual and real.  Reconstructionists oftentimes accept only a qualified definition of "chosenness".  I am OK with that.  They also change up matrilineal definition of "who is a Jew" which until recently I thought was quite problematic until I discovered that the orthodox definition is not Tanakhic, but rabbinically halakhic!

There is plenty of room for change.

Where there isn't room for change, though, we should not change.  We cannot throw out the baby with the bathwater.  In this case it is quite a baby.  The baby is the Inner Self which we must cherish and protect, and manifest fully in a world which needs as much compassion, love, justice, and keen intellect as possible.

I supposed they thing they worry is that in this struggle my own "keen intellect" will go to the wayside. I think the thing they think is, if I have been given so many Gifts by G_D why should I waste time putting them to use in self-contained involvement with seemingly obsolete, arcane, and alienating practices.

It is a good point!  I wonder about this myself much of the time.  Because I have faith in Hashem, and believe that I am doing only my best to be thankful at this time and at all times to Hashem for what I have been given of soul, mind, body, family, love, life, and many blessings which I cannot count (a.k.a. Ayal, Mati, and all the many men and women I know who have been actual G-Dsends) – Thus I believe that I will be guided to a place that makes sense and in keeping with what I will get out of my intellectual faculties and will be able to put them to use in good ways.

Funnily enough, I know already that I am guiding my instincts in a direction that will ultimately lead me to have the best possible impact on life, people, and society.  Dad insists that the only way to do this is by, I donno, medicine, but I take his opinions with a grain of salt because dad also believes that you cannot possibly be happy if you make 50k.

Anyway, I wish people who know me well would be able to just trust me and believe that I see what I am saying and know what I am talking and have faith that it will all be OK.  This way, I could feel less like I have to constantly be on the defensive, and would be able to explain things in an open and compassionate way, and indeed would not even have to "explain", "discuss", "defend", "apologize" anything.  It could be unspoken.

Keeping Shabbat, wearing Tzitis, keeping Kosher, saying the Shema: these are BASIC TENETS of my faith.  Why should I meet so much resistance?

I place my faith in G_D and trust that it is all for the best.