|
How would Objectivism apply to those whose rational faculties are compromised? How do the schizophrenic (does not accurately perceive physical reality) and the bipolar (does not accurately perceive social and personal reality), to pick two examples, live their lives in accordance with Objectivism, and what does Objectivism suggest about interacting with them? |
|
I agree with most of what Kirk has said in his answer, but there are few points I think need to be made. Therefore, I wish to offer a few thoughts on this issue, even though I was the one that raised it. If you are mentally ill, not with a mild condition like ADD or a completely debilitating condition like Downs Syndrome, you have difficulty thinking and acting rationally. Here, I am not discussing problems that can be talked away. I am talking about chemical imbalances that absolutely require medication to fix, and usually still persist even with medication. I have known several individuals with mental disorders (Objectivist individuals, actually) who regularly face the frightening problem of second-guessing the rational and/or perceptive faculties. What is an individual to do in this instance? The problem is exacerbated by the fact that these individuals cannot tell when they are having an episode. Take bipolar disorder as an example. The individual, when properly medicated and not in the throws of either mania or depression, may perfectly understand the risks and downsides of blowing his life savings in Vegas or sleeping with a different person every night. If the individual's medication slips out of balance, however, he may enter a manic phase, at which time these activities look like no-lose propositions. How could he lose, he's on a winning streak? He can't get AIDS, all of his partners said they were healthy. These are irrational positions, but the manic person is incapable of seeing that. They won't be dissuaded by a rational argument either. It's like the brain switches from "I need to act in compliance with reality" to "I need a reality that complies with my actions." What does an Objectivist individual do when faced with an illness like this? While my answer is not fool-proof, and it is not clean, it does get the job done a good percentage of the time, and allow the individual to live their life more or less as a rational being. The answer is anathema to Objectivists under normal circumstances, but under these circumstances, I believe it is not only consistent the Objectivism's most basic principles, but absolutely necessary if the individual is to live a happy life. The answer is to trust in the judgment of another person, or perhaps two, preferably the closest people to the individual. This does not apply to every judgment; actually it only applies to one: whether the individual is making rational decisions. The individual needs to ignore their own judgment as to their mental state in favor of the judgment of a trusted spouse/family member/friend. The individual has to accept, almost on faith, that if their trustee tells them they are sick, then they are sick. With the knowledge that someone is watching their back, they can make any other decision on their own with clear conviction that they are making rational decisions and perceiving reality correctly. Is this perfect? No. But it is the only answer I have found to be consistent with Objectivism's requirement of obeisance to reality, that allows the mentally ill individual to pursue their happiness to the utmost of their ability, with the least amount of freedom surrendered. Does it open the individual up to manipulation? Yes. Is it a sacrifice on the part of the trustee? It shouldn't be. If it is, that trustee is not the right person for the job. The answer provided here is a way for both the sick individual and the one who cares deeply for him or her to live as happily as possible. If anyone has an answer they believe to be more consistent with Objectivist principles I welcome their answers to this question and their comments. 1
First, what's the principle here? One should follow the advice of others if they think they aren't acting rationally? Second, What's the point of living when one's rational faculty is that of other people? Third, how can one judge the person who is going to judge reality for them? To judge another person one must assess their character over time, in regards to reality. If a person can't judge reality, then they must trust (blind faith) a person that they can't objectively judge. This is not good advice. Kirk, I hope you were not insinuating in your second point that mentally ill people should commit suicide. There's enough of them at risk of that already. Like I said, this answer has logical pitfalls; it has holes. I would like to hear an answer that affords the individual more epistemological certainty, adherence to reality, and ultimate happiness than what I have proposed. As far as I can see, given the facts of reality pertaining to mental illness, this answer is the most consonant with Objectivist principles. I said "what's the point of living when one's rational facultry is other people." My advice in my answer was to do everything in your power to live the best life you can. I never implied nor said that you shouldn't take the help of others, but your claim is to trust - as a replacement to your own faculty - other people. And how do you justify this as "consonant with objectivist principles?" My first question was what's the principle here. You have yet to elucidate how telling a person who may or may not be able to adhere to reality (how does one determine this?) that they should trust others. The principle is that reality is what it is, and individuals must deal with reality to the best of their ability. Determining that one is intermittently incapable of adhering to reality is an inductive, iterative process (usually long and painful). Sometimes the individual never achieves this understanding. When they do, however, what other option do they have? Constantly worrying whether they are perceiving things correctly? I agree with all your concerns. The fact is, though, that this is the reality, and it must be lived with. If there is a better alternative, again, please tell me.
showing 2 of 4
show all
|
