Sanity is a question of your perception of reality.
Why???
Quite simply… we are spirits primarily, but we live in physical bodies. Metaphysical realities is that depression is the lack of hopeful stimulation, as much as possiable as an underdeveoped seratonine gland.
Why???
Why is it that people born with the alcaholism gene have the same problems as those who build a tolerance to alcahol. Adaptation. Adapting to problematic things like self defeating patterens.
How???
Rage releases adrenaline witch releases endorphins. But is beating your wife into submission hidding from the problem or a healthy way to grow past the problem. In this, the patteren is that anger doesn’t solve anything, accept to let people know they have crossed the line, and to have enough compassion to stop. But an unreasonable and angery person is ignorring the problem while feeding the anger until it grows into death.
Why???
“An individual’s values typically are largely, but not entirely, in agreement with their culture’s values.”
The “status qoe” is a hyper extended value of society. IE being raised on pop culture is creating a void in lives. Thus the problems that are parrellel the status quo are more accepted. (not holding a relationship down.)
We feel, and therefore are inspired to create and grow.
God heals the soul, and creates spiritual growth.
God inspires me to look at people with compassion. He lived with sinners. Choose a; tax collector , a jewish leader, a greek philosopher, a doctor, a theif, a fisherman… all as disciples. He inspired them to grow past their conflicting differances. And I long to do the same.
God Inspires me to love all people as brothers. Even though people can take my openness wrong. Even though people can spur me with distrust.
God has given me a heart to help the abused, and feable. But besides money, I want to do something. Any act you do in the name of Jesus you do to Jesus.
God has inspired me not to accept the staus quo, but grow beyond it, and word it out latter.
those who believe in God are only using feeling to acknowledge him, faith is a feeling, but when out action is based on feeling, we are not human. it is reason that make us human. religion is a spiritual emotion, it does not think, religion control human emotion they use the emotion of man to control human spiritually, emotion do not think it take action without thinking, emotion do not think before he do, emotion inteligence is the using of reason to control our inteligent
Actually, quite the opposite. Most human action is based on feelings/emotions/neurotic and pathological egoic beliefs…
That is who we are, despite the egoic wishful thinking that we are ‘rational’ critters, and ‘above’ animal (‘other’ animals) behavior.
‘Reason’ is just one feature inherent in humanity (and perhaps other species as well), there are many features comprising our self definition. All are inherent, all are necessary.
if people don,t think before they do then we are mere animal to be human is to let reason guide our every action and decision
because many of our human action is based on feeling that is why we commit crime and evil
if we are to be call human reason must guide and control our emotion and actions
What makes it not vanity to think that, a) humans are the only thoughtful animal, and we are animals.
Evidence does not support your ‘particular’ definition of being human.
We are human no matter what we think or don’t think. ‘Thought’ is not a requisite, and ‘reason/ligic’ is only a ‘thought’ (not what is directly perceive, but what we think about, how we might interpret what we directly perceive) about perceived reality. ‘Reason’ is only one tool for understanding of the perceived Universe.
We humans are not predominately rational creatures, nor ‘should’ we be.
Ok, I can’t hang with your ‘evil’, but I can agree about ‘crime’. So what? It’s who we (some of us) are, at the moment.
Whaddaya mean ‘we’, anyway? I don’t commit crimes, do you?
Well, I can see how you might think that, but I see things very differently.
You are (in part) a human (among other things).
You are ‘thoughts’ and ‘feelings’ and ‘emotions’ and pathological egotism and ‘beliefs’. Are you a criminal? Are you human?
I understand the metaphoric and poetic usage of the term ‘human’ as you are using it, but it seems lost in a ‘pie-in-the-sky-if-we-could-just <fill in the blank> and-the-world-would-be-so-much-better’ dream. (Usually it goes “if everyone were just like me!”)
All I can add is that you simply be the change that you want to see! Dump all of your beliefs, start learning and engage critical thought instead, and you’ll rid the world of another ‘belief’ that must be defended by whatever means, and propagated, by whatever means. Most of the horrors committed man on man is a ‘belief’ surviving and spreading. And great logic is employed in perfecting the weapons for the ‘defense’ of a belief.
In what do you ‘believe’, that you would fight and kill and die for? Freedom? Freewill? Choice? God? Jesus? Krishna? Money?
Possessions?
‘Belief’ is diametrically opposed to ‘critical thought/rationality’; the more of one, the less of the other. So, in the interest of honesty, it behooves you to achieve your rational aims by abandoning all beliefs!
“Be the change that you want to see!”
*__-
Peace
reason is a slave to the passions - you can’t make it much simpler than that.
there are well-reasoned crimes and atrocities committed all the time - reason will not lead us all to the same unified endpoint of consensual goodness - it doesn’t work like that - reason is a tool by which we acheive our desires - those desires might be good or bad, depending on your perspective, but reason won’t necessarily tell you that by itself - you have to be working from some sort of moral platform which reason alone cannot generate for you - morality requires emotions, sentiments.
Reason is a tool you apply to facts to reach conclusions. Those conclusions may thwart your desires (or you’d never say that someone reasoned themselves out of an unwise course of action) but you’re right, it’s morally neutral.
Morality comes in whether (and how) your desires affect your perception of the facts, and your (value judgement of/response to) the conclusions. I don’t know that you necessarily need to be emotionally involved to perform a conscious moral act.
No you don’t - not at the time of the act itself - but you do need to be emotionally invested in some sort of moral platform - a Christian may thwart his immediate desire by reasoning that it would be wrong to have promiscuous sex, while satisfying his telic (and emotionally invested in) desire to be a good Christian.
You can also have the telic desire of taking a reasonable course of action - say you realize that even though you are in a hurry it is unreasonable to run all the red lights because you’re likely to get in an accident - that would be reasoning oneself out of an unwise course of action - but it is all still subsumed in the desire to avoid accidents and injuries - reason is the tool of that desire.
At first, you are re-wording common sense, almost in some attempt to find a previously unknown law of the human mind or something to that effect - this can’t happen, and I’ll illustrate to you why. Then as your post goes on, it leaps off into nonsensical gibberish.
Any accurate information a person knows about the human psyche has to be gained almost entirely through intuition - and through experience. Sitting down one day and attempting to use logic to come up with hypotheses of the Human Psyche is only going to turn out to be a waste of time.
In many ways, people who we would consider “social people” are much better psychologists than most professional psychologists are with degrees. Why? Because the “social person” actively takes part in socialization, and theories can be established and tested on spot or they can be created simply from observing other people.
When a psychologist sits down and tries to use logic to come to conclusions, they will, for the most part, simply be pulling things out of their ass. The intuitive thinking is set aside, because they replace it with text-knowledge gained in college or from something they’ve read about.
When this happens, the psychologist will pull conclusions out of thin air - think of Freud.
With Freud’s very logical method of solving problems, he concluded that anybody who was Psychotic simply had hidden homosexual motives causing the psychosis - or that everyone has an unconscious sexual attraction towards their mother - or that cocaine is a miracle drug that everyone should be taking.
These conclusions are almost entirely drivel, and although innovative at the time, they were quickly replaced with theories provided by more intuitive thinkers such as Carl Jung.
You have a lot of misspellings in your post - and normally I am not one to criticize the spelling and grammar of another - but in this case, it is an all-too-potent indicator that you are not well-educated in the topics you are discussing.
For example, “Sanity is a perception of reality” sounds neat, but not entirely accurate. The mental state of “sanity” is actually well-defined to the point that we could consider it “ingrained” in our genetic coding - it is not something that was created by psychologists. “Madness” and “Insanity” (also quite natural phenomenon) have been recognized throughout human history - the criteria for which were not just created in the mind of some guy.
When insanity begins to set in, it is not directly caused by a change in perception, but it is a malfunction of neurological mechanisms.
A sane person might think space aliens live on Mars, but will abandon that belief if irrefutable evidence is presented.
An insane person might think space aliens live on Mars (and this fact is not what makes them insane) and what classifies them as insane is that they think the space aliens are trying to control his/her mind or some other disorganized/paranoid/delusional idea, and they behave erratically and abnormal.
Beliefs are determined as “paranoid”, “insane”, or “delusional” not because of what the delusion is, but how it is presented.
I really can’t even read this… But it indicates one of a few things: You tried too hard to type out whatever it is you were trying to say; You haven’t slept in a while, and can’t type as a result; or, you are trying too hard to sound like you are knowledgeable in the topic you are discussing.
That sentence looks like word salad - a symptom of schizophrenia or other thought-disorders where the brain “skips” from idea to idea so quickly while talking, that the end-result becomes irrational or incomprehensible. However I don’t think it can be considered word salad if its written or in text.
No its not. Previously you were under the control of your impulsive desire, whereas ensuingly your desires are under diction of reason. In the truly powerful man reason rules, whereas in the inferior it is enslaved.
disagreed: reason alone cannot determine it’s own ends, only the best ways to acheive them. Why in the end, should anybody be reasonable? Only because being reasonable assists them in acheiving their desires. One must either WANT to be reasonable for its own sake (your version of the “truly powerful man” for instance), or one must have some desire to which the reason is a subordinate means. Reason remains only a tool.
Reason isn’t a tool of any desire, it is used to help one deduce what they should desire in life. If desire had full control, your existence would be fully impulsive and instinctive: similar to animals.
fundamentally, our existence is impulsive and instinctive (we ARE, after all, animals) - we rationalize it after the fact - granted, desire’s methods of control are often influenced by rationality. just like the accessibility of certain resources influences the way we invent and construct things, but rationality remains the subordinate force - the tool of the subject, hir alibi for the crime.
You don’t understand, I said it wouldn’t be possible to reason at all if desire was in control. We would just desire things constantly. Reason would be useless
i don’t see why that would be the case - we are smart enough to recognize that reason is often an efficient tool for achieving our desires - that’s something we learn through experience. Sure, as a newborn we “just desire things constantly”, but eventually pattern recognition begins to take hold and we start to notice specific courses of action that produce specific results - we then apply that principle to the attainment of our desires - applied reason - technology is the paragon example - technology doesn’t just develop arbitrarily on its own, we develop it as a means of attaining various common human desires
Right, but why is this experienced in the first place? Look beyond the veneer of appearance
Which desires? If all we desired was food, comfort, sex and/or immediate happiness, why not just all live in jungles, walk around naked everyday and do what we want without having to work towards anything?
whatever is imperceptible is irrelevant, we can argue over what it is that we perceive or intuit or infer but we cannot argue over the unknowable because we don’t know anything about it.
we would do that, if that’s what we wanted to do - but for most of us, it isn’t - what we want we have to work for - and btw if you think surviving in the jungle isn’t work then you’ve obviously never tried it.