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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment