Depends on what you mean by ‘destroy’. You could mean that there is a sane self and a deviation from the norm is insanity.
But who defines what the sane self consists of?
Of course, ‘destroy’ could just mean death.
if you are poor you have schizophrenia…
if you have some money to pay you have schizoaffective disorder…
if you are rich you are just unusual or different…
We have little knowledge as to what a sane self entails. All I am saying is that it is sanity to be able to fight against all there is that would make us feel worthless or defeated.
=D>
the word sane no longer has any real meaning…
People quickly figure out what the labels mean. That’s why new labels are constantly being created.
It means conforming to the norm of the group.
In a room full of psychopaths, the non-psychopath is the insane one.
You really only use it in law with an attempt at rigor, not that they succeed. And there it really comes down to function. people think insane and sane have to do with the ideas in the head. But no, it comes down to what you do, can do, fail to do…though often how you think affects the things you do and do not do.
As far as I see, people can manage to work, even be successful, and have incredibly loopy ideas. Some of these people even contribute nicely to society. Others are demons.
People who get labeled insane in legal contexts either have good lawyers (or their family members do) or they are not doing well at all. Mostly the latter is the case. I mean, you wouldn’t want to be in the kinds of pain and confusion these people are in.
I don’t think that I would necessarily use the word 'content" here Ierrellus. That might describe someone who is a door mat or a scapegoat or a joyful pessimist if there is such a creature. 
I think that part of sanity is true self-awareness and consciousness. To be content with any situation one finds one’s self in without acknowledging its positive or negatives and acting on that might be more insane than sane albeit perhaps not really insane.
Even a stoic in a particular situation will act.
Paul, because of his religious fervor, was content with the fact that he was in prison. In other words, he did not spend useless time opining about what happened to him. He survived the ordeal. Sanity involves not what happens to us, but how we see what happens to us.
Hi Ierrellus,
You do have a point - under those circumstances. When there [is] no other choice to be made or action to be taken, things are "out of our hands’ it does show sanity to be stoic about one’s situation albeit not indulging in amor fati necessarily.
The Serenity Prayer of the 12 step programs for rehab from addictions is a good plea for sanity. Paraphrased–
Lord, grant me the serenity
To accept what I cannot change,
The ability to change what I can
And the wisdom to know the difference.
Yes, I always liked that thought. Pure stoicism there, me thinks. Carpe diem, Ierrellus.
Is it sane to allow the Lord to take over your fate??
I am not sure because actually, maybe that is the only sane thing. Because actually, maybe there is no “I” but there is only a voice who calls to Lord.
And then the voice becomes an attribute to the Lord.
I have not understood Lordship over the fates of man of a Prayerform which is how I see Lord. Is there an actual Lord? No. Or, maybe. But I think He is a placebo mainly and the way he comes to you, His power, His bliss and His majesty, is the dream of perfection in your soul. But I am almost insane, I was at one point almost over the edge of sanity so I am not sure if my voice should be trusted even if it is at the address of the Lord.
He works in mysterious ways but so do I. This counts for confusing prayers and rewards!
Let me change what I can not change, which is that I can not change what I can not change… please Lord show me I am your Son.
That would all depend on what ‘sane’ is.
As long as you try to remain Napoleon, you are Napoleon says the mad-man.
That depends on the Lord in question.
Sanity is the ability to cope with whatever comes your way. Those who are labeled “insane” are either not able to cope or who are dependent on self-defeating coping mechanisms.
I’ve know christians who do just that. It might not be insane but I think that it is giving up one’s personal autonomy and it is also irresponsible. If we don’t respond, act upon, what chaos could come to us. If we allow the Lord to take over our fate, who is it really who is controlling us? Perhaps another who is not the Lord - we are so lazy. lol
Do you ever trust a teacher to “determine the fate” of your understanding on a subject? Were you insane for allowing it? How else could you make any progress?
…same difference, just requires a more talented “lord”.
A “Good Lord” doesn’t control you forever, merely while you are in jeopardy (like a seat belt).
But you still have to “buckle up”, else it just doesn’t work (and thus the atheist “can’t see the evidence” - he never buckled up). And the seat belt doesn’t steer the car, so you still might foolishly steer off a cliff.
Agreed, that means we are insane.
… I can live with that label.