Is Mental illness proof of an ultimate mind?

[LoyalChristian]

Maybe some people are that way because of trauma that was done to them in the past/present. It causes them to commit suicide(short or long term). But I know there is help in these situations.

 

[Pieman333272]

I am not saying this is a valid argument. I am just throwing it out there to see what happens.

1. Mentally ill people exist objectively; and we know they shouldn’t be like that. Which is why we call them mentally ill.
2. If Mentally ill people exist objectively, then it would mean that there is a way they ought to think, but they have been deprived of that ability.
3. Given metaphysical naturalism, there is no such thing as a way things ought to be. Things just are.
4. But that would contradict our experience of mentally ill people.
5. Therefore if there is way that people ought to think, this can only be true if there is an objective standard of mental health, by which our minds our measured. This mind has to exist objectively, otherwise the standard is not objective.
6. Since this ultimate standard of mind is the measure of what a mind ought to be in terms of health, then it stands to reason that this ultimate mind is the hierarchical source of all contingent minds. If you ought to do something, that means that you were brought in to existence to do something, and this is true because your minds presence in reality is intrinsic with the fact that you ought to do something or ought to be a certain way. In this case you exist to reflect a standard of mental health.

Conclusion: There is an Ultimate Mind

The trouble I see is that this argument assumes a certain reason why we view mental illness as objectively problematic. I think that while we view it as *problematic *because of the way they think, we view it as an objective illness because there are clear flaws in the brain for the way they think. See schizophrenia.com/disease.htm, for example. Indeed, some have stated certain disorders (such as the personality disorders) are purely subjective (I happen to disagree and I’m starting to believe they’re even contradicting themselves by saying that, but that’s another story).

But I think the argument can still be salvaged - as if the brain only had the different physiology but there was no altered state of thinking (perhaps something like a philosophical zombie can be made up for psychiatry), we would say it is a difference, but not problematic objectively. I don’t know. That being said, making a case for God from mental illness has always been an interest of mine, so it’s good to see some attempts.

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

I’ve decided to include an indication of my own particular insanity in the form of a poem I wrote at one stage and which came to mind as I thought about and responded obliquely to your argument, or really only a fraction of it. You do know that because you usually, well, invariably (mercifully?) ignore me if I do post on your threads! I’m out of phase and is that not a little insane? Yes, there are norms by which we judge, but are they not arbitrary. Where does the abnormal-mind-definition begin or end?
Mostly I didn’t even reply to your question:
Thats part of what ails my mind. You proposed logic, I jump a detail seeking to unravel your logic by subjective rambling that expresses my detail in opposition to your logic.

Understanding

My dear, I love you,
but the reasons matter not.
One cannot argue with the fact of love
which is entirely of the stuff of God.

Yet, my dear, we sometimes seem estranged!
my thought and heart have failed to closely match your own
and we leave each other alien for a while–
even wounded or damaged for life–
though both are imaged in love of the same eternal God!

The wonder perhaps is that we meet at all
for each created being is possessed of logic,
of identity unique within itself
which only appears reflected in others’ lives and thoughts
for none can know or judge but by a private consciousness.

Each soul remains hidden within divine Love’s mysteries
manifest in wondrous individual expression.
It is a whole world, formed and blessed,
and burdened with heavy crosses, perhaps?
a world in value, goodness and giving apparently slight?
yet perhaps its’ all–the sum of what God grants it
for His own secret delight!

After death many surprises await,
of treasure buried in simple human hearts
concealed perhaps in ugly shapes, foolish deeds and ordinary lives
and in lives that others might choose to brush aside or to crush
as crippled, useless, unbalanced, peculiar, unwanted, unworthy…
He miniaturises His special created delights sometimes–
persons negligible even to themselves.

And it pleases Him that our least ones He shall exalt
before the vast and great and good.
From God alone
comes union and mutual understanding of souls, minds and hearts.
True comprehension waits upon
the fullness of eternal communion, begun in Eucharist.

Until then I only know, like you, the truths as I allow Him
to speak them in my limited, biased self.
I cannot know and love you, dear, nor you myself,
unless God grants this gift.
This does not mean that I do not love you.
Just that I love the best that I can.
Forgive me all the rest. And I, you too.

Dear Trishie, this is a very beautiful poem. May I copy it out for myself? I’ll give you credit, of course. Your writing really touches me and speaks to my inner conflicts.

 

[Sair]

You are assuming cynicism is realistic…

Like any attitude to the world, sometimes cynicism is realistic and entirely appropriate. It depends upon circumstances.

You are introducing a non-physical source of control into the complex web of interactions…

On the contrary, you are assuming the self is non-physical in the sense of being not contingent upon physical substance. Our own picture of ourselves is as much a function of the operative states of our brains as is our particular understanding of the world. There has never, thus far, been any successful attempt to identify an entity separate from the physical body that is the seat of consciousness and the ‘self’.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

The trouble I see is that this argument assumes a certain reason why we view mental illness as objectively problematic. I think that while we view it as *problematic *because of the way they think, we view it as an objective illness because there are clear flaws in the brain for the way they think. See schizophrenia.com/disease.htm, for example. Indeed, some have stated certain disorders (such as the personality disorders) are purely subjective (I happen to disagree and I’m starting to believe they’re even contradicting themselves by saying that, but that’s another story).

But I think the argument can still be salvaged - as if the brain only had the different physiology but there was no altered state of thinking (perhaps something like a philosophical zombie can be made up for psychiatry), we would say it is a difference, but not problematic objectively. I don’t know. That being said, making a case for God from mental illness has always been an interest of mine, so it’s good to see some attempts.

I think all that needs to be said is that mental illness prevents a person from correctly perceiving objective reality. For example dementia prevents people from understanding the recent past, autism prevents people from correctly perceiving other people, and anosognosia prevents people from correctly recognizing their own disabilities. Whether or not a mind *ought *to be able to correctly perceive objective reality is irrelevant, we have simply defined minds that can as normal, and minds that cannot as ill. While the OP thought “illness” to implied a state which *ought *not to be, I instead think it is simply a state which we would prefer not to be.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

While the OP thought “illness” to implied a state which *ought *not to be, I instead think it is simply a state which we would prefer not to be.

So nobodies truly mentally ill, just like nobodies truly immoral.

I see a pattern emerging here.

 

[tonyrey]

You are assuming cynicism is realistic…

It is never appropriate when it is an attitude to existence…

You are introducing a non-physical source of control into the complex web of interactions. Our own picture of ourselves is as much a function of the operative states of our brains as is our particular understanding of the world. There has never, thus far, been any successful attempt to identify an entity separate from the physical body that is the seat of consciousness and the ‘self’. …

On the contrary, you are assuming the self is non-physical in the sense of being not contingent upon physical substance. Our own picture of ourselves is as much a function of the operative states of our brains as is our particular understanding of the world. There has never, thus far, been any successful attempt to identify an entity separate from the physical body that is the seat of consciousness and the ‘self’.

**You - like everyone else - identify the entity you regard as ****yourself every time you make a decision rather than allowing your brain to make it for you. You assume you are in command of yourself **rather than a puppet manipulated by physical events. Your mistake is to regard everything in terms of isolated parts rather than an integrated whole. Yet the atomistic view of symptoms has given way in medicine and psychology to a more rational synthesis which regards a person as **an indivisible whole. **The mind and body are not two parts but a fundamental unit. A bodiless mind is as nonsensical as a mindless body - as you will discover in any consulting room or court of law!

 

[Trishie]

So nobodies truly mentally ill, just like nobodies truly immoral.

I see a pattern emerging here.

Or are we all a little mentally at question, in some way?.. Okay, perhaps with some exceptions…probably not excluding you as a rare completely sane person;
…because I fear some somebodies may be genuinely immoral.

 

[rom422]

While the OP thought “illness” to implied a state which *ought *not to be, I instead think it is simply a state which we would prefer not to be.

According to the functional definition of normal, a thing is said to be normal when it functions according to what it is by nature designed to be or to do. For example, if the eye is by nature designed for seeing, then any eye that fails in vision is not normal. And if 20/20 is the normal vision, then any eye that departs from this state is abnormal to the degree in which it deviates from this state. Therefore, being normal or being sick is not a choice. It is not what you would *prefer *to be or not to be. Rather it is where you find yourself to be.

Now, the natural purpose of the mind is to have knowledge of the world, and to be able to think coherently. In this function it is aided by the intellect, the imagination, the memory, etc. If the mind fails in any of these (such as failure in memory), then there is sickness. If the mind is incoherent, then there is also sickness. Be careful, though. If a person makes a mistake in judgment, it does not mean that he or she is sick. Perhaps he only misunderstood something, or maybe he just started his thought with the wrong premise, which is why he made a mistake. These are states of error or ignorance, not a state of mental illness.

Many doctors do not want to call a person who exhibits some form of mental abnormality mentally sick. If you see someone in the street talking by himself - completely unaware that he is in a public place where such behavior isn’t accepted practice, - then there is obviously a problem, but doctors would rather call this a “maladjusted behavior,” rather than an illness. Well, call it what you want, but calling that problem by another name does not make the problem go away. As the saying goes, “Calling sh$t by another name does not make it smell better.”

 

[Trishie]

MindOverMatter2 what I was trying to demonstrate instead of discussing was something like this, to some degree all of us have disordered, not perfectly healthy minds.
The argument that makes it possible to deduce an ultimate mind is the simple fact that our minds exist, not whether or not our minds are mentally ill in such a way that we receive a clear diagnosis.
A perfectly healthy and balanced mind would never forget, never sin, never have an illogical reaction to anything.
It would not forget something in the mental grocery list, not get a single equation wrong, never a spelling incorrect. It would never choose an attractive evil over a ‘boring’ good. It would never see good as boring. It would never judge falsely. It wold never be illogical.
We all fail in these things in some form or other.

I just experienced a case in point. I heard my husband shuffle out of bed. It’s morning here in Australia, and I’ve already walked a half hour to Mass and a half hour back, and it’s hot. And I’m trying not to make too much of a hash of explaining a viewpoint, to people who wouldn’t know me if I stood up in their porridge and wouldn’t care that much…but even still I felt frustration that I would need to leave what I was trying to do, to make his coffee and his Sunday breakfast (He has set requirements, needed for one with his particular mental/personality issues) which really was no more than putting half a cup of raw muesli, half a cup of milk, and a minute in the microwave. I give him a hug, then I leave his breakfast on the round table near the window where the outlook is trees. I can’t remain, just pop out to him periodically, as in the morning he can’t handle company, and certainly not chatter! It takes a few hours for him to function better, and later he will be more open to company. So that’s not much to ask…but even to have that momentary disinclination to do that because I was doing my own thing, is disordered. Yes, my mind too is disordered (and not just in the ways you’ve noticed. Yes I could have, as some might, said “D could you get your own breakfast, I’m busy with something.” Or I could have which many seemingly balanced and non-ill minds might have said. “Are you helpless, get your own darn breakfast!”.

We all have behaved in disordered ways, or our minds have thought in a disordered way. It’s mentally ill if I go out of control through some diagnosed illness and verbally or physically attack a fellow creature, but how is it less damaging and less mentally ill if a father physically and mentally cows his wife and children.? He is destroying lives. The appearance of an angry person can be as destructive as a diagnosed mentally ill person.
Both these sets of behavior come from disordered minds, disordered thinking, and to a greater or lesser extent we all must confess to the disorder in mind and emotion of jealousy, of anger, or judgment etc. Every sin proves a disordered, sickness of mind, a mind that is not in perfect balance.

I don’t see how we can postulate an ultimate mind from unhealthy or diagnosed mentally ill mind, or even a healthy mind.
But from any and all of these, but from the mere fact of their existence, we could postulate an ultimate mind that created them

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

So nobodies truly mentally ill, just like nobodies truly immoral.

I see a pattern emerging here.

No, I have defined a very clear criteria for mental illness. Perhaps you should re-read my post.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

According to the functional definition of normal, a thing is said to be normal when it functions according to what it is by nature designed to be or to do. For example, if the eye is by nature designed for seeing, then any eye that fails in vision is not normal. And if 20/20 is the normal vision, then any eye that departs from this state is abnormal to the degree in which it deviates from this state. Therefore, being normal or being sick is not a choice. It is not what you would *prefer *to be or not to be. Rather it is where you find yourself to be.

Now, the natural purpose of the mind is to have knowledge of the world, and to be able to think coherently. In this function it is aided by the intellect, the imagination, the memory, etc. If the mind fails in any of these (such as failure in memory), then there is sickness. If the mind is incoherent, then there is also sickness. Be careful, though. If a person makes a mistake in judgment, it does not mean that he or she is sick. Perhaps he only misunderstood something, or maybe he just started his thought with the wrong premise, which is why he made a mistake. These are states of error or ignorance, not a state of mental illness.

Many doctors do not want to call a person who exhibits some form of mental abnormality mentally sick. If you see someone in the street talking by himself - completely unaware that he is in a public place where such behavior isn’t accepted practice, - then there is obviously a problem, but doctors would rather call this a “maladjusted behavior,” rather than an illness. Well, call it what you want, but calling that problem by another name does not make the problem go away. As the saying goes, “Calling sh$t by another name does not make it smell better.”

That sounds a lot like begging the question. If you want to prove that there is some ultimate design of a human mind, and your first premise is “minds which function according to their design are normal,” I believe you have set yourself up for a very short, and very unconvincing, proof.

 

[rom422]

That sounds a lot like begging the question. If you want to prove that there is some ultimate design of a human mind, and your first premise is “minds which function according to their design are normal,” I believe you have set yourself up for a very short, and very unconvincing, proof.

Begging the question is when you assume as true a conclusion that still needs to be proved. However, the fact that the mind has a design or purpose (which is to know) is not a proposition that I am trying to prove, because I think it is axiomatic and already evident to all. We don’t prove axioms in any science. Therefore, I am not begging the question, but simply taking it as axiomatic (or evident without need of proof), that the mind is naturally designed for knowing, just as the eye is naturally designed for seeing.

Honestly, TrueCentrist, don’t you think that our minds are designed for knowing? If not, then what do you think are our minds for?