One thing I observed in taking various psychology courses, including abnormal psychology, is that the field of psychology has to respect behavior considered normal in some cultures but abnormal in one’s own. This includes certain religious practices or beliefs.
Another element going into this thread is the idea that someone can be diagnosed and that can be labeled “certifiable“. But nobody gets a certificate of sanity, unless you count things like a clean bill of health that allows you to go home from whatever Mental Health facility you have been admitted to.
Putting those thoughts together, the criteria for a certificate of sanity would vary between cultures. Probably the closest we get to that is a background check for criminal behavior or bad credit, and requiring things like references, letters of recommendation, and proof of education. Do we require those things because those are our ideas of functioning sanely in society?
To be sane is to be a law-abiding, tax-paying consumer. You can be certifiably diagnosable in all manner of mental illnesses (or be as vicious as a mobster who pays off the popo) and have a completely dysfunctional family life, be completely miserable, be always on the verge of suicide, as long as you pass a background check and have letters of recommendation.
you ever watch the show it’s always sunny in philadelphia? frank was shanghai’d upstate to a nit wit school and later received a certificate that said he didn’t have a donkey brain.
if this said, “could” instead of “would” i would be more inclined to agree with it. for now, i think it is possible that a definition of sanity could exist that might transcend cultural differences. you could have one that doesnt, and apply several in order to accommodate differences, but how can we say with certainty that there isn’t one that is narrow/nuanced enough to account for them and put all the insane people across cultures into one category under it?
I love Danny DeVito. I saw Drew Barrymore interview him recently. Sidenote: nm.
I said “would” & i stand by it — it makes sense if you take into account certain socially acceptable practices that are considered illegal in other societies. “Law-abiding” would be too … sweeping a generalization. An lawful order based on an unjust law is insane to follow, and (on the flip side of the same coin), some things go legally unchecked that it is still insane to do (hence Hitler). Whether or not an evil genius is insane or just evil… is basically the question that sparked this thread. Do they just need the right kind of therapy, or do they know & have all there is needed to do better, and deliberately choose not to? How does one test for (& certify) that? Related: Insanity defense. Also Related: Folks who fake mental illness because the rent is TOO DAMN HIGH.
The valorizers won’t wield self=other (to dupe the masses harder) as hard as they twist the knife (decrease supply to increase demand/profit) until unbearable. That’s why it’s too little too late, and the heterostatically upset equilibrium will death wobble. The ONLY way trickle down saves us is if there’s a massive reset back to self=other, and laws set in place so the knife twists both ways.
Yes but in the metaphysical real world, the politics of experience have proven to be useless, as Szasz, Laing, et al. we’re the burst bubble woven into the tapestry of what occurred prior to the ‘Summer of Love’
That love were ok with the breakers and shakers of the NY intelligentsia, but suffered on account of those that could have should have benefitted to pursue leftist ideology, wanted a quick fix, a shortcut to an eternal return from the repeating fall from Camus’ despair.
Even he was perplexed that the parallel was patently misused, instead creating a social double cross.
Most trickle gets reabsorbed in a recycling that ends up as a media op.
The literal logic of politics which has sensible roots from sensible sources of how justice was administered from the heart of man, has been overcome by the configurative justice that derived from games of opportunity and disenfranchised values.
That utilization in an outpaced demand can be used to account for the correspondingly reduced supply, is propaganda that did little to enhance either ideologies .
Therefore, the sun-material basis of that argument sinks toward the the results of corresponding skeptical immaterialism.
Marx should again converge unto Hegel.
Dialectical realism is yet to be recognized by converging semblances in between both of Kant’s Critiques.