I thought I’d make a thread, instead of going off topic on that thread.
Now, I do not consider sanity a single yes or no question. Sanity, it is not the best word in our language. There are people which are wrong about one thing, and right about another. There are people who spend all their money on alcohol, but may not be violent, while another violent person never drinks. Morality is all about judging people, things, essences, ideas, life, etc. But judgement itself is difficult for some people. We hire judges and lawyers. The common idea is that people themselves are not capable of justice and punishment, they need a professional to do it. Sanity is effected by this, because only a few people would ideally be qualified to judge who is sane and who isn’t. But the psychiatrists mostly look for major malfunctions, while remaining liberal-like in their thinking: It’s ok to be a communist or a muslim. But, if we weren’t so liberal in canada, a muslim may be insane, or all muslims are insane, according to that.
However, I reject “professional judgement” and professionalism in general.
Sanity is about balance and harmony with our self and the things we live with.
Insanity is not about tea parties and cackling.
I Think one could be correct that nearly everyone is severely deluded. But once one begins to communicate this
there is something well beyond the truth/falsity of the assertion involved. A dynamic including the idea is happening.
What is that dynamic? What is the person uttering this doing?
Does it make sense, given the assertion, to be doing this?
How are so many of those people managing to live to quite old age if the global judgement they are insane is aimed at them?
For me insanity, if given as a simple label, means the person does not function well enough to get by. Their ideas damage their Health and ability to support themselves.
They will end up homeless or beaten up regularly.
Otherwise there is some significant sanity attaching them successfully to the processes of the World
or they have caretakers with a lot of Money.
I think psychiatry agrees on that definition.
People are only allowed to be put into a ward if they can no longer assure the safety of themself or that they are safe with others.
I don’t think that in philosophy we should regard consensus as a good standard of proof. Therefore, I disagree with the notion that one person could be right and everyone else insane, or wrong, or whatever. You see the point.
I mean, what about the great innovators? Guys who wrote out systems of government or who patented or came up with the technologies that enable everyone to live better now than before? Were they not in some cases guys who everyone thought were crazy? Isn’t that the stereotypical kind of thing we envision when we think of an inventor? Someone who everyone thought was a mad scientist until they came out with that new medicine? I dunno…consensus, in many cases is what takes a wrong idea and gives it the power to fuck things up.
According to Ucci’s argument, the whole world of people can’t be all wrong, you are instead wrong, for thinking that they are wrong, when in fact they are mostly right.
I Believe they were described as insane sociopaths in the context of a discussion of whether people should have Babies and most of the arguments supporting the anti-natalist position, supported it on the grounds that Life, in general, is not Worth living and suffering predominates. Perhaps Ucci meant his argument to be more generalized, but in that context, it becomes silly to Think one can evaluate the value of Life of people you consider insane sociopaths. I couldn’t begin to presume I knew whether they are enjoying Life and, for their own sakes, were better off never having been born. They might be constintutionally happy as Penguins on an ice slide but all the time.
I certainly do Think that most people can be wrong, certainly about specifics, even deluded. Perhaps I disagree with Ucci there. But in context it seemed to me the idea that ‘nearly everyone is an insane sociopath’ makes the anti-natalist position even weaker than otherwise.
I would guess that Ucci knows that pretty much everyone was wrong about certain things, the sun revolving around the Earth, whatever…But perhaps not, maybe he will join in.
If one goes to the trouble of very precisely defining what “sanity” inherently means, despite common usage, one realizes that he really is living on the Planet of the Apes from the very top to the very bottom. Are apes “sane” by human standards just because they survive?
The way things are going with insanity becoming common vernacular, stressors becoming fashionable and useful commodities, the bar is constantly lowered to afford convenient tools for social manipulation. Wheater insanity the term is even applicable
any longer as a description of inter and intrapsychic events is highly questionable.
Alot of people who seem insane are sane and many more who are mad are actually quite mad, but it is hard to tell the difference to be honest, hence the art of psychology.
The species is fucked up on so many levels that what might seem sane to some is totally mental to others and vise a versa, given that everyone is insane seems stupid you just need to find a bench mark, and hope your ruler is right… And yes the pun was intended.
What is your argument for why people are insane-ish?
My argument has to do with ideals. The ideal is sanity and truth. People then fall short.
Some animals are wiser than humans in many ways. Without that, I wouldn’t have normal beings to compare things too.
So another part of my argument is: Think of your favorite animals. Do they behave better than a general human in at least a few ways?
Also using your imagination you can imagine a better world, and again, people fall short.
I agree sanity is overrated anyway it is best to be at least somewhat insane according to others, at least then you know you are not the usual suspect drone. Crazy enough to be creative, sane enough not to care about your mentall illness over much.
Insanity evolved in animals at the same time as intelligence, or at least they were complimentary, you might want to think about that, evolution does not do that many blind alleys. It’s a fine line between genius and insanity, it’s a finer line between idiot and moderator, if you do feel the need to judge because you like conformity just make sure you are not a hypocrite, because we all see it, whether you admit it or not.
I can imagine a perfect world however I fall short. Accept first that you are flawed, often useless to the point of the banal, and then move forward is my advice; and if you are mental, like I, just hope no one notices for long enough to put you in a padded cell.
You and me baby aint nothing but mammals, and barely evolved higher apes at that.
I know I have a ton of flaws but most of it is weaknesses. I think I’m lucky though, to have only a certain type of flaw but then not a other type which I consider much worse.
I Think apes are quite sane. They are simple. They maintain their sanity in a very limited area, but they are very effective in that area. Their sense of reality works rather well, unless they come in Contact with, what are often, crazy humans. However ape-sanity is not very flexible, unfortunately for them nowadays, so they cannot adapt to these incursions very well.
If one asks a drunk for a definition of being drunk, what kind of response would you expect?
Being “insane” is thinking or doing anything that is not increasing the probability of one’s continued life (I won’t go into the details of what “life” means). If an entity is not seeking anentropic harmony, it is insane (“not-sane” = “not securely stable” = “sensitive to entropy”).
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
Slavery, for example, was the norm, once upon a time. Those who spoke against it, were criticized and considered unfit.
Walking off a cliff with friends, is no less harmful, than in isolation.
Uccisore said that going against the majority is a mark against you - it’s a reasonable point. However, it is but one mark, which can be consoled with strong evidence.
Cognitively stupid people are people who make a small quantity of high quality calculations and connections, cognitively insane people are people who make a large quantity of low quality connections. Stupidity and insanity are the opposite kinds of cognitive errors. The tortoise (slow and steady) is stupid, the hare (fast and unsteady) is insane. Example of stupidity - gangsta looking guy with a knife stares at me intently in a dark alley way. My response - why… are… you… looking… at… me… funny?, or - can… I… help… you? Example of insanity - preppy looking guy with a plastic knife and fork glances at me in a crowded mall/food court. My response - part of the plot, part of the plot, he’s out to kill me because I refuse to pay my parking tickets, I have to get him before he gets me! One fails to assess the situation in time, or assesses it slowly, the other drastically misinterprets the situation. Both failures could result in the death or injury, however, they don’t have to necessarily result in death or injury in order to be labeled stupid or insane, although that helps to make it more objective, they just have to fail to interpret or misinterpret situations a lot more than the average person.
