Insanity/Reality/Truth? A conversaiton with a relativist relative

[PRmerger]

I recently engaged a relativist in-law in a discussion on Truth.

I defined Truth as that which conforms to reality. Among other points that were discussed, I offered this: if one is oblivious to Truth, then one is not living in reality, that is, one is mentally ill.

Her response was, “So? If a person is living outside the realms of Truth/reality, but he’s happy, so what?”

How does a good Catholic respond to this?

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

If a person is mentally ill, they do not have full control of their actions. Therefore, they cannot choose to either ignore nor acknowledge reality. Most of us, however, do have a choice. We must choose Truth.

 

[PRmerger]

We must choose Truth.

To which my relativist in-law will respond: Why? Why do we have to choose Truth, if living in la-la land would make us happy?

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

To which my relativist in-law will respond: Why? Why do we have to choose Truth, if living in la-la land would make us happy?

How can you be happy choosing what you know is wrong? There is more to life than physical pleasure.

 

[bogeydogg]

To which my relativist in-law will respond: Why? Why do we have to choose Truth, if living in la-la land would make us happy?

Ask him if he believes there is any such thing as universal truth and if he says no ask him if that answer applies universally.

 

[PRmerger]

Ask him if he believes there is any such thing as universal truth and if he says no ask him if that answer applies universally.

Yes–we’ve been down that road already.

I just don’t know how to respond to her when she shrugs off mental illness by saying, “as long as he’s happy, what’s the big deal?”

She commented that by claiming that sanity is better than insanity, it’s the equivalent of “ethnocentrism” i.e. saying my culture is better than your culture!

 

[blessedtoo]

If you are speaking about authentic mental illness, I think you will find that most people who live with diseases of the mind would gladly choose truth and reality over the torment they live with daily.

If you are speaking of willful ignorance, which is how it sounds with your friend, that is something different. Regardless of how effectively one keeps themselves blinded, Truth will eventually catch up, if not in this life, then in the next. Would your friend remain willfully ignorant of anything else in her life except for objective truth?

As an example: I recently fell into some financial hardship. Being unable to pay credit card bills, I fell far behind. I chose to ignore the situation and live in “la-la land” for several months, not answering the phone or opening my mail. But, lo and behold, the “truth” did catch up to me and now I find myself in even deeper doo-doo.

Dealing with the soul is similar. The longer one avoids answering or opening the heart to things that may make us uncomfortable or cause us pain, the farther we will fall from our stated goal: happiness. Truth, by it’s very nature, is inescapable. Those who think they have a choice in the matter are fooling themselves.

 

[james1001]

I recently engaged a relativist in-law in a discussion on Truth.

I defined Truth as that which conforms to reality. Among other points that were discussed, I offered this: if one is oblivious to Truth, then one is not living in reality, that is, one is mentally ill.

Her response was, “So? If a person is living outside the realms of Truth/reality, but he’s happy, so what?”

How does a good Catholic respond to this?

The quick answer is that in order to be happy he must live within the realm of truth/reality because there must be at least one truth; i.e. that he is happy.

True?

 

[PRmerger]

The quick answer is that in order to be happy he must live within the realm of truth/reality because there must be at least one truth; i.e. that he is happy.

True?

I’m not sure I follow you. You’re saying that a mentally ill person who’s not in touch with reality is not really happy, since he’s essentially oblivious to his happiness?

 

[michael_legna]

PRmerger:

She commented that by claiming that sanity is better than insanity, it’s the equivalent of “ethnocentrism” i.e. saying my culture is better than your culture!

There is nothing inherently wrong with ethnocentricism, after all someone’s culture is best, so it must be better than any other culture. The problem comes from claiming your culture is better when you are not really qualified to judge which one really is best, after all it is a complex question.

The problem with accepting happiness based on admitted lack of knowledge of truth is that this form of happiness is most likely transient. It is choosing short term happiness over long term happiness. This is because if you are oblivious to the truth you are vulnerable to changes in the outside world affecting you and your happiness, where as those who have a grip on reality can react to changes because we see them as they occur and maybe even see them coming.

 

[Southsider433]

Yes–we’ve been down that road already.

I just don’t know how to respond to her when she shrugs off mental illness by saying, “as long as he’s happy, what’s the big deal?”

She commented that by claiming that sanity is better than insanity, it’s the equivalent of “ethnocentrism” i.e. saying my culture is better than your culture!

What if this mental illness includes me thinking that I am intangible? And I decide to walk into rush hour traffic? Does my “truth” and “happiness” cancel out reality,or will truth prevail i.e I get run over? The point to get across to your relative is that the truth is real and unavoidable. That truth is more like math and not art.

As far as culture vs. culture. What if culture A kills newborn girls and culture B opposes such a practice? Is this the same as culture A wearing red hats and culture B opposing such a practice? Is one univerally wrong and the other a matter of taste or are they both the same?

These are the type of questions that force a honest person to re-consider the question about the reality of truth. Remember some people will deny reality either because they are pridefull(do not want to concede) or intellectually dishonest.

 

[james1001]

I’m not sure I follow you. You’re saying that a mentally ill person who’s not in touch with reality is not really happy, since he’s essentially oblivious to his happiness?

Well, no, not really. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.

I’m assuming, from the title of the topic and from what you said in your first post, that your relative is relativistic about truth; an alethic relativist if you like. If so, the easiest way to discredit her claim to alethic relativism is to point out that she herself affirms absolute or objective truths. She does this in the argument you originally presented.

So, whether or not the mentally ill person knows he’s happy or not is beside the point. The point is, when your relativist relative insists that the mentally ill person ‘is’ happy, she is making a truth claim (conveniently omitting any reference to truth) about a state of affairs in the world. It must be true, in an absolute sense, that the mentally ill person is happy, otherwise, her claim is either meaningless or just an expression of what she believes. The latter makes her claim trivial because you could say that you believe he is unhappy, which is just as ‘relatively’ true as her belief.

 

[PRmerger]

The problem with accepting happiness based on admitted lack of knowledge of truth is that this form of happiness is most likely transient. It is choosing short term happiness over long term happiness. This is because if you are oblivious to the truth you are vulnerable to changes in the outside world affecting you and your happiness, where as those who have a grip on reality can react to changes because we see them as they occur and maybe even see them coming.

Aha! Yes! Very good point!

 

[PRmerger]

What if this mental illness includes me thinking that I am intangible? And I decide to walk into rush hour traffic? Does my “truth” and “happiness” cancel out reality,or will truth prevail i.e I get run over? The point to get across to your relative is that the truth is real and unavoidable. That truth is more like math and not art.

As far as culture vs. culture. What if culture A kills newborn girls and culture B opposes such a practice? Is this the same as culture A wearing red hats and culture B opposing such a practice? Is one univerally wrong and the other a matter of taste or are they both the same?

These are the type of questions that force a honest person to re-consider the question about the reality of truth. Remember some people will deny reality either because they are pridefull(do not want to concede) or intellectually dishonest.

Ooohh! I like this response!

The problem now is that the discussion is over–I did not have these arguments you and everyone else has provided me ahead of time, unfortunately!

My inlaw was here last night, and I really wanted to bring up the discussion again, but felt like it was not appropriate. Everyone in my family thinks I hang onto issues like a wild dog with a piece of raw meat anyway! Sigh!

 

[Southsider433]

Don’t worry about it the situation could very well come up again.Here are some good books to read “Mere Christianity” by C.S Lewis, “Handbook of Christian Apologetics” by Ronald Tacelli and Peter Kreeft:thumbsup:

 

[Dispector]

I recently engaged a relativist in-law in a discussion on Truth.

I defined Truth as that which conforms to reality. Among other points that were discussed, I offered this: if one is oblivious to Truth, then one is not living in reality, that is, one is mentally ill.

Her response was, “So? If a person is living outside the realms of Truth/reality, but he’s happy, so what?”

How does a good Catholic respond to this?

I perceive truth to be something which occurs objectively. The nature and existence of everything occurs regardless of our ability to perceive it in its full extent. However, our inability to perceive everything does not mean it does not occur. It still occurs objectively, but we only perceive through our little seeing glass. Truth, in its full context, is beyond any of our grasps.