The mad-mans metaphysics

[Delanar67]

As a beginning for my dilemma, I'd like to quote a small section of Philosophy: Who Needs It.

If an intelligent and honest layman were to translate his implicit, common-sense rationality (which he takes for granted) into explicit philosophical premises, he would hold that the world he perceives is real (existence exists), that things are what they are (the Law of Identity), that reason is the only means of gaining knowledge and logic is the method of using reason.

Although this probably has already been asked, I've searched for a bit of time to see whether or not an answer to a specific question about Identity applied to my case, and shockingly enough, I couldn't find anything. I'll begin by saying I'm not confident in my searching abilities, but this question has been itching at me while my hands are tied behind my back, and I desperately need to scratch it.

If "things are what they are," and our senses act as input, then what if a man in an asylum sees a completely different reality than that which the average person sees? How would you know whether or not it is he that is correct, or the majority, if in his reality, there are no contradictions as well? How can you say that what you perceive is correct, and that the man that sees differently is deluded?

I'm unfortunately very confused at the moment, and I would greatly appreciate it if one of you could clear me up on the subject.

[softwareNerd]

How can you say that what you perceive is correct, and that the man that sees differently is deluded?

Perhaps he sees land as far as the eye can "see", and you see you're standing at the edge of a cliff. In another second or two, you'll know which one of you is right. Repeat enough times, in less dramatic instances.

[John Link]

I'm unfortunately very confused at the moment, and I would greatly appreciate it if one of you could clear me up on the subject.

What are you confused about? What is your relationship to the hypothetical man in the asylum? Do you know such a person? Are you in an asylum yourself? Or is all this just hypothetical (in which case the only problem I see is that you think you have a problem)?

John Link

[Gramlich]

Why would you think he's correct?

[Delanar67]

The question was strictly hypothetical, but as I look back at it, it wasn't a well thought out one. At times, my mind seems to experience fleeting moments of weakness in which I complicate everything when there's no need to, so an accurate description would be, just as John Link said, I think I have a problem, but I really don't.

[brian0918]

Ask the man in the asylum for the evidence to support his claims regarding the existence of flying purple elephants.

Assuming he has no violent past, you could also free him from the asylum, and observe his ability to get the food he needs to survive (this goes back to softwareNerd's point).

More fundamentally, though, if you (not the madman) can't even trust your senses to present *reality* to you, then how can you say for certain that there even is a madman in an asylum? How can you say for certain what a "madman" is, or even what an "asylum" is? Maybe your idea of a "madman" is actually everyone else's idea of a "chicken", and your idea of an "asylum" is actually everyone else's idea of a "farm".

This point I am making is related to the "brain in a vat" argument, which has been discussed here before.

Edited March 7, 2010 by brian0918

[John Link]

The question was strictly hypothetical, but as I look back at it, it wasn't a well thought out one. At times, my mind seems to experience fleeting moments of weakness in which I complicate everything when there's no need to, so an accurate description would be, just as John Link said, I think I have a problem, but I really don't.

Problem solved?

John Link

[Delanar67]

Problem solved?

John Link

Problem solved. However, I'm still trying to get the gist of Objectivism, so I can't promise that I will not post questions of this manner.

[JMeganSnow]

It's not a bad question, I'm surprised that people were a bit sharp in their answers. If you haven't already read OPAR, I recommend that you do, because Peikoff talks about the primacy of existence, which is what you seem to be having an issue with here. The point is that perception doesn't create reality, so if someone's perceptions are limited in an atypical way (such as with a color-blind person) or faulty (such as with a delusional person), they still are not perceiving a *different* reality. They are perceiving the same reality, with a different or broken apparatus. But because reality is independent of the observer, it is possible for us to either abstract away the different parts and say "oh, you're color blind", or simply verify the broken parts and say "oh, you're delusional".

[Robert J. Kolker]

In the Land of the Blind, the one-eyed man is not a King. He is a maniac. He sees things that no one else does.

If there is ever a mutation that enables a human to see into the infra-red range, that poor soul will be seeing heat signatures that no one else can see. In a sense, he will be plagued by "ghosts".

Bob Kolker

[softwareNerd]

In the Land of the Blind, the one-eyed man is not a King. He is a maniac. He sees things that no one else does.

This echoes the mistake the OP was trying to resolve. So, you're not being of any help here.

[brian0918]

In the Land of the Blind, the one-eyed man is not a King. He is a maniac. He sees things that no one else does.

Actually, he would be King. The blind will come to depend on him for his ability to find food, avoid predators, etc. His ability to predict reality more accurately than anyone else is what confirms that he is more connected to reality than the blind.

In the same vein, the blind see only blackness - an empty void. If a blind man was to assume that he actually existed in an empty void - despite the evidence of his other senses -, that would imply that he is irrational or crazy. But blind people don't assume that. They assume their eye balls are giving them misinformation or non-information, and should be ignored as a source of knowledge.

If there is ever a mutation that enables a human to see into the infra-red range, that poor soul will be seeing heat signatures that no one else can see. In a sense, he will be plagued by "ghosts".

Except that these "ghosts" could be confirmed by touch (thermal radiation), or with a simple detection device, and identified as infra-red radiation.

[Trebor]

"The day when he grasps that his senses cannot deceive him, that physical objects cannot act without causes, that his organs of perception are physical and have no volition, no power to invent or to distort, that the evidence they give him is an absolute, but his mind must learn to understand it, his mind must discover the nature, the causes, the full context of his sensory material, his mind must identify the things that he perceives—that is the day of his birth as a thinker and scientist." - Galt's Speech in Atlas Shrugged

The senses are valid and absolutely reliable, 100% of the time. All that they give us is direct evidence of existence. No more, no less. The senses do not give us conceptual identifications of what we perceive. There are no errors in perception. Errors only occur in conception, only on the conceptual level. Such things as illusions (a mirage) or delusions (false beliefs held in contradiction to evidence) are not failures of perception. The senses are 100% reliable because they are determined. The senses are our automatic, self-evidently valid contact with, awareness of, reality.

"...to call a deterministic process objective, I'm going to argue, is to steal the concept. The concept objective does not apply to sense perception. It would be a stolen concept to say, 'I see you now objectively.' Why not? Why can't I say that? Because there's no such thing as seeing you subjectively. I can't say, 'I'm seeing the words in front of me correctly.' Why not? Because there's not such thing as seeing them incorrectly. Sense perception is not objective because it can't be subjective. It's just sense perception. It's just the given. It's just contact with reality.

And sense perception is the given and is unquestionable precisely because it's subject to physical determinism. Conceptual objectivity is caused by the ego, by the conscious self, not by physical, deterministic practice. And that's why it's different, that's why subjectivity is an option, a bad option." - Dr. Harry Binswanger in his audio course on Free Will

[Gramlich]

It's not a bad question, I'm surprised that people were a bit sharp in their answers.

If by "sharp," you mean clear, concise, and to the point, then your surprise surprises me. I was simply asking a question, with no disparaging connotations intended.