Thread: Is sanity/logic truly defined by the majority?

Oh woops it was O'nus that said that lol

Originally Posted by tommo

Oh woops it was O'nus that said that lol

Just look in "Dream View Favorites" for "Hi, I'm new please read". It was my first post.
~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Just look in "Dream View Favorites" for "Hi, I'm new please read". It was my first post.
~

Huh? look there for what? I was looking at your first posts from 2003 yesterday by the way, to see your poverty of speech. I couldn't recognise a lot of difference, not being mean, it's just that it wasn't bad at all.
I stumbled across the one where you posted that movie thing, I thought that was your first post? The one where it takes ages to load and nothing much happens. Anyway so yeh, why look at your Hi, I'm new please read thread? I couldn't find it in the favorites by the way.

Logic is like math; it is an abstract concept used as a tool and the rules are true by definition within the system. I'm sure someone else could explain that better than me.

There are people whose brains are damaged or whose neurotransmitters don't work right which cause them to be insane. There are other people in whom the damage may not be recognizable (for example, a psychopath) but whose behavior is so obviously pathological they have to be labeled as insane.

If a society wants to lock up or do something to people whose brains are intact but who have just have different ideas and call them insane, I'd say it is the society that has the problem.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

If a society wants to lock up or do something to people whose brains are intact but who have just have different ideas and call them insane, I'd say it is the society that has the problem.

Uhm, so it's alright to lock people up who have not 'intact' brains?

Originally Posted by tommo

Huh? look there for what? I was looking at your first posts from 2003 yesterday by the way, to see your poverty of speech. I couldn't recognise a lot of difference, not being mean, it's just that it wasn't bad at all.
I stumbled across the one where you posted that movie thing, I thought that was your first post? The one where it takes ages to load and nothing much happens. Anyway so yeh, why look at your Hi, I'm new please read thread? I couldn't find it in the favorites by the way.

It is there. But here is the link: http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...read.php?t=363

tommo: I think you missed Moonbeams point. (I just realize here that I don't know the gender of Moonbeam, and in respect to recent feminist movements, I always refer to the female reference in cases like this, so please don't be offended...) She was saying that some people who have intact brains need to be helped. This does not mean locking them away and throwing away the key. She was saying that if we locked away a "sane" person, then it is societies fault. We do, however, have to help those that need it (ie. schizophrenics, cataplexics, etc.).
~

But who is to say who is insane?

Originally Posted by Keeper

But who is to say who is insane?

This question can easily be answered. Often we take the term too broadly, but here is a simple way to look at it:

Insane; the incapability to survive or function alone as an individual. To be insane is to depend on others in order to survive and function in any sort of society.

For example; cataplexic schizophrenics cannot survive alone. If they were left alone for a couple of days, they would die. Thus, we can deem them insane in the face that they cannot survive alone.

I think the reason there are many that have problems with the word "insane" is because it has become so pejorative and duragatory to call someone insane. However, there is no problem in saying the word insane when we are referring to someone who actually does need help.

I think we can agree that some people genuinely need help and those people are generally referred to as "insane". Right?
~

Originally Posted by O'nus

This question can easily be answered.

Considering that other thread on the ability to be honest that turned into a schizophrenia related debate, i don't think it can be easily answered.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I think we can agree that some people genuinely need help and those people are generally referred to as "insane". Right?

Yes, some people certainly need help. By cataplexic schizophrenics you mean they are unable to function right? So overcome by their emotions they basically stop function on a physical level? I'm guessing so.

Put this way I think maybe these people would not be able to function in any society. I know I said some schizophrenics could survive happily in shamanic cultures but whether these cataplexic ones could or not I'm not sure. Maybe they could before they got this bad? I mean it's not like they turned this way overnight. Most of the damage to brain function in 'mental illness' could be attributed to stress/fear. So as they got more and more scared of becoming insane, they adversely caused more damage to themselves.

Anyway, yes, we call these people insane. But what is sane? That is what we need to answer first. If sane is having the ability to interact with and perceive the world as majority of people do, then insane would be defined as not having this ability; thinking mostly of internal things and excluding the outside world for the most part.

I just want to clear this up because I'm not sure where we are going with this to be honest. It's a tough issue to discuss because nobody fully understands the human mind. I mean, who's to say that the so called cataplexic schizophrenics if left alone for a few days on a deserted island, even though dying within a few days, would not experience the most enlightening and amazing things that no 'sane' person could even begin to comprehend?

Why do we choose to 'help' these people when we don't really know what they are experiencing. Of course we shouldn't just let them suffer because they might be having the time of their lives, but I think we shouldn't assume we know what is best for them. Why do we always choose longevity over quality? Because that's how our society is. That's why a lot of teenagers are now doing drugs; to escape this type of thinking. One of the most amazing girls I've ever met is a big time drug user, she says 'live fast, die young'. Of course she wouldn't care if she lived to be 100, but she isn't wasting her time, she has fun as much as possible, and she would live every one of those days doing something she loved. I myself find it hard to accept because I want her here for longer.

If we want to help these 'insane' people live longer, more boring lives, then that is really insane.

We are born different and that makes us unique. Why not incorporate the way our brains function into our lives? I mean, people who are unbelievably good at maths could be deemed insane if it weren't for the fact that they are needed in certain jobs.
If maths wasn't a part of our society they would sit at home, which would probably be the streets, completing maths problems in their head or drawing them on walls with rocks because this is how they were made to function. If we then took them and 'rehabilitated' them, causing them to stop thinking about maths altogether. They would then be called sane.

In our society right now, we would call that action, insane.

Do you see what I'm getting at?