The Contingency of Sanity

[e_dog]

if you've ever doubted that what is sane or insane is entirely relative then reflect on this thought and actio experiement.

if you walk around a few city blocks in a big circle, your activity is considered perfectly normal and even admired as a healthy thing, exercise.

if you walk around your apartment, your activitity -- pacing -- will be at most somewhat annoying to those in your company, but can be explained as a slightly nervous though understandable activity of someone occupied by important and serious thoughts.

if, however, you narrow the circumference of your walk even further, and walk in a tight circlearound a couple of kitchen floor tiles, suddenly your behavior passes over into the realm of the crazy and seriously mentally disturbed.

is this a sorities paradox of the definition of insane behavior?

[Trevor]

Hi, interesting topic, thought I'd throw my pennies in the fountain on this one.

"if you've ever doubted that what is sane or insane is entirely relative then reflect on this thought and actio experiement."

It seems you are putting forth the proposition that sane and insane, is or can be, measured by action. Perhaps it is often done so, but done unfairly for action has little to do with sanity, but rather the thoughts behind action are probably the more accurate means of regarding what is sane and insane. Sanity can not be based upon physical action, even though action often reflects thought, for sanity is a term regarding a state of mind, not a state of body. I think the confusion of relationships lays within opinion vs. fact - Because I see something that I think is insane, such as a person walking in tiny cirlces for no comprehensible reason, doesn't actually mean that action is based upon insane thoughts. It just means that I have formed an opinion of this person's actions or the logic of their action. Not until I fully understand the reasoning behind the circles, can I truly "know" if this action is the product of a sane or insane person because states of mind, perception, should be measured against a person's reasoning of an objective reality. The objective reality is; a person is walking in circles. This tells us nothing of what is sane or insane. To find out the sanity of the action we need to know "why?". However, because action is often the product of thought, one could fathom a guess of who is sane or insane based upon actions, though guesses are only speculations because if they were truths we'd all be winning the lottery. Relatively speaking, though action is often an indicator of the mental well being of an individual, it is not necessarily a factual truth. For example, someone with Tourettes a hundred years ago would be deemed insane and institutionalized. However, we now know that is not the case because the intent of someone with Tourettes isn't to act out or tick, etc. without reason, but rather is an uncommon physical ailment. Sane or insane, though often treated as something subjective, is in reality, objective because it is based upon an objective reality. If sanity is not based upon objective truths, then it has no basis for practical purpose and is a term, labelling process, or understanding, as valid in the hands of the insane as it is with the sane. All opinions are real, though not necessarily reflective of reality except in terms of what we think about what is being percieved.

However, relatively speaking, sane and insane is an objective truth that is mostly practised in a subjective manner and this is often interpreted as objectivity. Which is unfortunate in my opinion.

A definition of sane and insane should probably be based upon time tested truths, that which withstands intense critical scrutiny and has no break in its reality, a consistent constant when viewed accurately...ie, the world is round, not flat.

Its a knowledge of objective truths, or that which is proven to be undoubtedly true after scrutiny, and the understanding of such that allows us to establish a mass reality, which in turn is what we should base our definitions of sane and insane upon because this is as close to an objective reality as we can possibly achieve. Without this commonality of objective truths, "truths" and "untruths" would exist upon the same subject at the same time, which is an impossibility when thinking in terms of an objective reality. Something can not exist and exist at the same time when dealing with something objectively. Subjectively, yes they can, however sane and insane, in a strict definition, should not be an opinion, but rather factual. With all that being said, states of mind should not be strictly compared to action, but rather compared with other mental states of "normal" and "abnormal" in relation to an objective reality. The physical world, in all probability, can not actually be insane or sane because it is adheres to strict natural laws (even if we are ignorant of them) and its truths are not subjected to opinion but rather remain a constant. Therefore, physical states of being should not be a measurement of sanity for any physical state is not sane or insane, but rather a natural truth. ie...walking is not sane or insane, it is just physical movement. However thinking you are walking on clouds while walking along pavement is insane, not because of the action, but because of the thought on the action in comparison to the what is its reality.

It's my belief that action does not reflect a level of sanity but rather the intent of action, the thought on action and the belief system behind it when juxstaposed upon an objective reality. For example:

"if you walk around a few city blocks in a big circle, your activity is considered perfectly normal and even admired as a healthy thing, exercise."

I think in this example sanity should be dependant upon the intent of walking around city blocks. If you are walking for excercise and thinking of your health as the motivation for such, then yes, all societies would consider it a sane action because doing things to maintain your health is a wise idea. However, if you are walking in circles around the city in order to avoid a gamma death ray beam by hovering invisible space ships from the planet Zoltron, then your actions would be considered insane by the vast majority. However, until intent is known, and weighed in against an objective reality, the action of walking circular city blocks repetitiously, regardless of underlying purpose, would in all likelihood, be percieved as sane, even if in actuality, it was based upon insane thoughts. But once intent, motivation and the underlying thoughts behind actions are established and based upon an objective reality, we can then know factually if a person is sane or insane. And since sane and insane is a term that reflects a mental state rather than a physical state, or at least that should be its practise, it is important to discover the thoughts surrounding action before surmmizing a judgement of sane or insane.


"is this a sorities paradox of the definition of insane behavior?"

Personally, if you were to base sanity upon the subjectivity of individual or mass perception, then perhaps it is a sorites paradox of the definition because I believe the mentioned examples of thoughts toward action is commonly practised yet goes against a more accurate definition of sanity. But if practised as such, sanity greatly changes with whims thereby losing most of its useful purpose as a definition in our society and becomes more or less a broad term rather than a truth. In fact, basing sanity upon this has led to such events as witch burning, heracy and superstitions. However if you were to base sanity upon an objective reality and our knowledge of such, which I believe to be the more accurate measurement, then I don't think it is a sortie paradox definition but rather a series of occurances without understanding or factual merit until the intent is known.


Anyway, that's about all i have time for. Thanks for posting the interesting thought, really made me think. Take care.

[Lightning Rod]

Tevor,

I'm glad to see that you stumbled in here. I'm looking forward to some of your analysis.

e_dog--great piece

[e_dog]

trevor,

thanks for the lengthy response.

the point about walking around the city to avoid death rays from Zoltron, etc. was very good point. but i don't really think that the relevent criterion is 'thoughts' that lie behind action, nor do i agree with your hard distinction between physical states and mental thoughts. the key is context. circumstances, the other behaviors and social responses that surround or could surround an action. (for example, isa the person mutters about rays and spaceships, if he gives strange responses to questioning, etc.) our only access to the mental life of people is through their behaviors and actions. therefore it is unavoidable that definitions or understandings of mental states will include references to (intentional) actions and unintentional behaviors. furthermore, i think that thought, perception and other mental processes are dependent upon, or indeed are, complex physical processes. the difference between, say, the Tourettes case that you mentioned and some other cases of disturbance is simple one of the differences of neural processes and whether or not scientists can identify them.

that being said, of course the physical processes which underly or compose a 'mental state' are objective facts but that does not mean that categories of social evaluatyion like 'sanity' or 'insanity' can be made objective. i think that judgments of saneness are intersubjective: that is, simply a matter of the attitudes and responses of the community towards the individual whose behavior deviates in ways it regards asd unacceptable or troublesome, much like crime but with a different repertoire of responses. there can be no objective assessment of sanity since it is a matter of the practices of a society, and these can of course vary ad infinitum.

(likewise, except this time with a fully subjective rather than intersubjective phenom., consider that the physical characteristics that comprise the objects that i call 'beautiful' are objective facts but the labeling of them is subjective; you may point to rather different physical objects and call them 'beautiful'; this is quite proper given the subjective nature of aesthetic judgment.)

[Trevor]

Hi LR, thanks for the welcome, mispell my name again though (tevor) and I'll have to slap you one...kidding of course

Hi Edog,

Thanks for replying.

"furthermore, i think that thought, perception and other mental processes are dependent upon, or indeed are, complex physical processes."

Very true and good point. I guess I was trying to internalize the problem rather than externalize it and befuddled it a bit. You have a valid point I think in that you can't really seperate thought from physical action when in fact thought is an internal physical reaction to stimuli. I think where my arguement went astray is trying to completely seperate the thought process from a physical state, where as you have brought to my attention that they are indeed one in the same. For example, I stated...

"With all that being said, states of mind should not be strictly compared to action, but rather compared with other mental states of "normal" and "abnormal" in relation to an objective reality."

Which you refute with.."therefore it is unavoidable that definitions or understandings of mental states will include references to (intentional) actions and unintentional behaviors."

And I have to say I agree with you. It is impossible for another person to define a mental state without reflecting upon the externalization of another person's mental state of being. However, are we talking about how we define mental states, or actually talking about the mental state of someone? These two things often differ and many a sane person over time has been, and occasionally still are, subjected to the detremental whims and opinions of the masses. What is deemed insane or sane is, and has often, been wrongly concieved and practised. In the past, mentally and physically handicapped people were often locked up with the truly insane and deemed crazy. We now know that they weren't actually insane but rather handicapped. In that time from then to now, only the societal definition of sanity has changed, but not sanity itself. Our reality has not changed, only our understanding of it. In fact, I believe insane, whether it be a factor of bad genes or bad experience, is an objective thing though in all probability beyond our ability to fully understand in an objective manner without error because of what you said earlier; we can not base this judgement on anything more than the actions and response of someone. Basically we need the externalization of thoughts to base this opinion on - juxstaposed against what we deem normal behaviour. However, it is a flawed system that often fails us, therefore it can not be a truth, but rather an opinion. And if our reality truly does exist in an objective manner and isn't subjected to our opinion of it, then logically, there has to be an objective truth to sanity - sanity being the accuracy in which we percieve and react to an objective reality.

"i think that judgments of saneness are intersubjective: that is, simply a matter of the attitudes and responses of the community towards the individual whose behavior deviates in ways it regards asd unacceptable or troublesome, much like crime but with a different repertoire of responses. there can be no objective assessment of sanity since it is a matter of the practices of a society, and these can of course vary ad infinitum."

I agree that is how defining sanity is largely practised by our society (though obviously differs in smaller factions/communities within a society..ie, cultures, religions and cults), but the point I was trying to get across is that often it is an inaccurate and unfair assessment. In fact, sometimes just plain old incorrect. If the whole world, but yourself, thought themselves to be able to fly and started jumping off buildings and they opted to lock you up in a sanatorium because you knew humans didn't have wings, it still would not change the fact that they are insane and you are not. In all likelihood, this would be an objective truth. Therefore, what is truly sane and insane has not changed, but rather only our definition of it. And since we are subjagates of an objective reality and not vice versa; shouldn't it be reality that defines us, and not vice versa. Sane or insane perhaps is an objective thing, however I don't think we are capable of dealing with it any better than in a subjective manner, and base a societal definition of such in ways that you have previously stated. I guess I'm just trying to help shape the discussion with the difference between the opinion of sanity, and sanity itself.

Ugh, unfortunately I have to get going...there were a couple more things I wanted to say but I'm sure I'll forget them before I can get back to this. I hate leaving a discussion half way done, my apologies. However, I look forward to reading more of your thoughts on this subject. I find the topic to be an interesting one, thanks for responding to my comments.

Take care,
Trevor

[Lightning Rod]

oops

sorry, Trevor

That's what I always tell them

I don't care what you say about me

as long as you spell my name right.

[e_dog]

trevor makes a distinction between (1) opinions about sanity, such as the way a society characterizes what is abnormal, vs. (2) sanity itself, which is supposed to be an objective fact about whether one is sane or insane (which is further defined in terms of whether the person's perception are lined up with objective reality). thus the notion of objectivity occurs twice, whether we can objectively identify what is sanity in itself as opposed to subjective judgments about it, and, second, the criterion or one criterion of sanity is being severed from objective reality. i reject both instances, or would rather limit the claims made.

let me deal with the second instance first. so called cognitive impairment, such as delusions that aliens are attacking or that men have wingless natural flight powers, are one form of insanity. but could also have purely attitudinal or behavioral disorders that coincide with an accurateawareness of objective facts. i.e. a person (not in a survival situation) who fantasizes about eating his own foot and tries to do so after say cutting it off and cooking it in the microwave, may have a very intelligent and functional knowledge of objective reality (as opposed to another case who might try to cook his foot using his psychic energy) but has seriously disturbed desires and behavioral tendencies which are neither objective truths nor falsehoods because they don't assert realities, but produce them.

returning to the first problem, whether sanity is an objective thing i think only up to a point and the range of objecvtively insane things is very narrow. there are some clear cut insane behaviors or people. but most cases are at the margins which depends on cultural norms. one culture's medicine man or warrior chief is another societies' criminally insane patient. one milieu's artistic genius is another's prozac consuming clerk.

[Trevor]

Hi Edog, thanks for getting back to this…I’ll try my best to keep up and hopefully add some more interesting thoughts to this discussion.


“but could also have purely attitudinal or behavioral disorders that coincide with an accurate awareness of objective facts. i.e. a person (not in a survival situation) who fantasizes about eating his own foot and tries to do so after say cutting it off and cooking it in the microwave, may have a very intelligent and functional knowledge of objective reality (as opposed to another case who might try to cook his foot using his psychic energy) but has seriously disturbed desires and behavioral tendencies”

I have to disagree with you Edog. A millionaire fantasizing about cannibalistic rituals who then decides to lop off his foot for a midnight snack while there is a 24 hr supermarket across the street, does not have a functional knowledge of object reality due to a skewed perception towards the relativity of things within an objective reality.

Fact – The sun is what we define as a star.
Fact – A star is made up of fusing or burning gases and particles and perhaps a couple of stray satellites.
A fact relative to the two previous facts – Planet earth needs the sun in order to maintain life.

With these objective and relative pieces of information about the sun we can safely say – someone who opts to build a nuclear bomb to snuff out the sun because they hate how much light breaks through their window, instead of buying better curtains, does not or can not relate different physical things inside an objective reality to form relative facts and can be safely classified as insane when it comes to sun or star management – and should probably not be issued a space shuttle license.

Now back to the foot:

Fact – Healthy humans are born with two feet.
Fact – Humans have feet in order to walk upon.
A fact relative to the two previous facts – Cutting off your own foot to eat is unhealthy due to many reasons, not the least is limiting one’s mobility and endangering one’s own life.

All living things have an inherited quality of preservation. That is by design, whether it be a higher power or a natural universal balancing act in place from billions and billions of evolving years. There is no healthy individual, or society for that matter, that actively seeks out self destruction because it is the universal norm for living things to try to survive. If this were not true - there would be no life. With that being said, by genetic design or from a god’s blueprint, the reflexive and inherit trait of self preservation and protection goes against the wishes of a self mutilating person with a bad case of the foot munchies. Therefore, relatively and objectively speaking, a person may still know all the facts regarding feet but may not be able to relate to them very well in an objective manner. It would be like knowing and mesmerizing every piece of a puzzle but not knowing how they connect.

“seriously disturbed desires and behavioral tendencies which are neither objective truths nor falsehoods because they don't assert realities, but produce them.”

It is an objective truth in regards to the mental health of a person and the only reality being produced is the reality of a person’s mental health in relation to an objective world. We’ve already established that thought is a physical action, and if desires and behavior are nothing more than thought patterns than they too are physical action. If the physical world is defined in terms of an objective state, that is as certain as a defined truth we can muster, then there really is an objective truth to desires and behavioral tendencies.

“returning to the first problem, whether sanity is an objective thing i think only up to a point and the range of objectively insane things is very narrow. there are some clear cut insane behaviors or people. but most cases are at the margins which depends on cultural norms. one culture's medicine man or warrior chief is another societies' criminally insane patient. one milieu's artistic genius is another's prozac consuming clerk.”

I still disagree with you regarding objectivity and insanity, but will return to that in a moment. I do agree with you, and have from the get-go that often societal whims, cultural norms, religious trends and even politics supersede a more accurate definition of sanity and rely upon opinion. However, why should opinion change fact? If people are defined as insane by this standard, and often people are wrongly defined as insane, then isn’t the societal definition of insanity amiss? Since we are on the topic of society and culture, I shall refer to Mirriam/Webster’s dictionary, a book which is used widespread, for the masses, accepted by the masses and is mostly in agreement with modern english language.


Main Entry: san•i•ty
Pronunciation: 'sa-n&-tE
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sanite, from Latin sanitat-, sanitas health, sanity, from sanus healthy, sane
: the quality or state of being sane; especially: soundness or health of mind



Main Entry: sane
Pronunciation: 'sAn
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): san•er; san•est
Etymology: Latin sanus healthy, sane
1 : proceeding from a sound mind : RATIONAL
2 : mentally sound; especially : able to anticipate and appraise the effect of one's actions
3 : healthy in body
synonym see WISE
- sane•ly adverb
- sane•ness /'sAn-n&s/ noun



Main Entry: 1ra•tio•nal
Pronunciation: 'rash-n&l, 'ra-sh&-n&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English racional, from Latin rationalis, from ration-, ratio
1 a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : REASONABLE <a rational explanation> <rational behavior>
2 : involving only multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction and only a finite number of times
3 : relating to, consisting of, or being one or more rational numbers <a rational root of an equation>
- ra•tio•nal•ly adverb
- ra•tio•nal•ness noun



Main Entry: rea•son•able
Pronunciation: 'rEz-n&-b&l, 'rE-z&n-&-b&l
Function: adjective
1 a : being in accordance with reason <a reasonable theory> b : not extreme or excessive <reasonable requests> c : MODERATE, FAIR <a reasonable chance> <a reasonable price> d : INEXPENSIVE
2 a : having the faculty of reason b : possessing sound judgment



Main Entry: 1rea•son
Pronunciation: 'rE-z&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English resoun, from Old French raison, from Latin ration-, ratio reason, computation, from reri to calculate, think; probably akin to Gothic rathjo account, explanation
1 a : a statement offered in explanation or justification <gave reasons that were quite satisfactory> b : a rational ground or motive <a good reason to act soon> c : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact <the reasons behind her client's action> d : the thing that makes some fact intelligible : CAUSE <the reason for earthquakes> <the real reason why he wanted me to stay -- Graham Greene>
2 a (1) : the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : INTELLIGENCE (2) : proper exercise of the mind (3) : SANITY b : the sum of the intellectual powers
3 archaic : treatment that affords satisfaction
- in reason : RIGHTLY, JUSTIFIABLY
- within reason : within reasonable limits
- with reason : with good cause


Main Entry: log•i•cal
Pronunciation: 'lä-ji-k&l
Function: adjective
1 a (1) : of, relating to, involving, or being in accordance with logic (2) : skilled in logic b : formally true or valid : ANALYTIC, DEDUCTIVE
2 : capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion <a logical thinker>





Main Entry: log•ic
Pronunciation: 'lä-jik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English logik, from Middle French logique, from Latin logica, from Greek logikE, from feminine of logikos of reason, from logos reason -- more at LEGEND
1 a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotic; especially : SYNTACTICS (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) : RELEVANCE, PROPRIETY c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable d : the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves
2 : something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason <the logic of war>
- lo•gi•cian /lO-'ji-sh&n/ noun



Now hopefully you got this far and didn’t tune out cause of all my cutting and pasting but I think this helps illustrate the lines drawn between sanity and objectivity. Regardless of how a society or culture chooses to persecute, treat or misjudge the sane and insane (I mean North America worships pop icons, the psychological profile of the idolized billionaires fit the bill of a hardened sociopath, and murderous movie stars, athletes and politicians run free), it still doesn’t change the fact of who is mentally ill and who is not mentally ill.

Of course the larger question looms over all of this – “What is the meaning of life?” But I believe with certainty, if there is an answer to that, then there is an answer to everything.

[e_dog]

...

[e_dog]

well, i doubt there is an answer to the question of meaning of life. only, you gotta find it out for yourself.

i guess it just comes down to this. you think there is something real to which the opinions of people about sanity is supposed to correspond. just as 2+2=4 even if everyone says 2+2=5 or that it is a fact that the ball will fall if we drop it of a tower even if i think the ball will fly away. what i am saying, however, is that in certain classes of phenomena (of which sanity may be one, or at least most cases of the question whether x is sane or insane) there is nothing at all other than the sum of opinions. just as there is no objective truth about whether licorice tastes nice, only a set of differing opinions or tastes, just as there is no fact about whether James Dean is cool or a poser, it is just a matter of our tastes, so too i think mental health is simply a matter of the tastes and distastes of a society. some people may want to fit in with the social suroundings, some may try to rebel against the dominant norm; most are simply subjected to it. power rules the day, not truth.

the excerpts from the dictionary were interesting to read together, but i am not sure what that was supposed to prove? whatever prejudices and assumptions about reason and whatnot are prevalent in the culture are going to b encoded into the dictionary. that doesn't settle anything when what we are talking about is a difficult issue about whether to accept social definitions; when it comes to, say, what counts as justice, we don't rely on the dictionary because everyone must decide for himself without submitting to easy answers; liekwise, with any tough philosophical problem, such as the nature of sanity, we shouldn't try to rely on what the dictionary says as if the people who write the dictionary are somehow expert intellectual authorites.

[Trevor]

Hi Edog,

“well, i doubt there is an answer to the question of meaning of life. only, you gotta find it out for yourself.”

First off..how can there not be an answer and then you have to find it out for yourself? Also, isn't no answer an answer as well? Something can not, “be”, and not-be at the same time.


”i guess it just comes down to this. you think there is something real to which the opinions of people about sanity is supposed to correspond.”

Aren’t opinions real? If opinions are what decide sanity, then isn’t that still corresponding with something that is “real”. Aren’t we still dealing with objectivity even when faced with opinions? Is there not an objective truth to opinions? Didn’t you state earlier that thought is just a physical process? If so, though currently un-measurable, isn’t there still a set reason for an opinion? Aren’t opinions just a collection of thoughts upon a perceived reality or a perceived truth processed by the brain? And if opinions are our brains attempting to interpret fact, shouldn’t we strive to make these opinions as accurate as possible? And if so, doesn’t that sound like us trying to achieve objectivity in this matter? Furthermore, here we are trying to achieve objectivity regarding the diagnosis, or labeling of sanity, when by your standards, this is an impossibility because there can be no set answer to something that does not have a set answer other than "no set answer", which would both include and not include opinion.

If there are no clear cut reasons for opinions then there can be no reason for why we are the way we are, or “who” we are. If there is no reason to why, or what, or how we think, then there can be no reasoning to who we are, for that which can not be defined, follows no natural laws. Therefore there can be no sane or insane according to your definition. Something can not “exist”, and not-exist at the same time. If there is no objective truth, no set reasoning for sanity, then by your definition, you are still incorrect half the time because everything becomes valid in an opinion. If sanity is based upon the definition of a society, and I am part of society, as are like-minded individuals, then my basis for sanity is just as valid as yours. By your standards and definition of what defines sanity – I am just as right as you are on this matter and just as wrong as well. …. Which makes perfect sense if you are not trying to make sense. According to your logic; sane or insane is defined by people who are both right and wrong about sanity at the same time.

We both agree that it is usually by opinion that a society defines sanity. Where we seem to differ the most is you say there is no real truth to sanity, only the opinions of a society, where as I say there is an objective truth to sanity. Even if there truly is no sane or insane and only opinions of such, there still lies an objective truth to that. A reasoning of why and how we classify sane and insane – a reasoning to why a society shapes that function and the purpose for such. A reasoning to how and why we form opinions. Nothing escapes the boundaries of reality.

“just as there is no objective truth about whether licorice tastes nice, only a set of differing opinions or tastes,”

There is an objective truth to whether licorice tastes nice. Licorice is supposed to be consistent with the taste it is akin to. Black licorice is supposed to taste of anise, not blueberries. Most licorice is produced with the same ingredients and have similar molecular structures. Though most taste buds are similar, all are not the same, nor are diets consistent across the globe. Little dried fish are the potato chips of Korea. Also, this has probably contributed to taste buds and diet perceptions evolving in different ways across the globe. Little dried fish is the food they are raised on, accustomed to and have developed a taste for. That fish, regardless of our opinion of its taste, has a certain molecular structure that will not change with our opinion of it, just as the structure of our taste buds will not change by will of thought either. Though this is a brief explanation for why taste is more than a simple opinion, I think you get the gist of what I’m saying. There is a reason as to why we like and dislike certain foods. It may be carelessly labeled as an opinion, but nonetheless, there is a sound and set logic for why we enjoy the food we enjoy. The truth is that licorice tastes nice to some and poorly to others is because of the structure of both taste buds, and licorice itself, set against processes in the brain. And when we eat licorice and state our opinion, it really isn’t an opinion, but rather a truth about how favorably the structure of licorice agrees with our body.

“just as there is no fact about whether James Dean is cool or a poser, it is just a matter of our tastes, so too i think mental health is simply a matter of the tastes and distastes of a society. some people may want to fit in with the social surroundings, some may try to rebel against the dominant norm; most are simply subjected to it. power rules the day, not truth.”

Isn’t having no fact, a fact within itself? What is a “no fact”? – Non-factual – Is that not a non-truth? If you define something as, untrue, non-existent, and it is proven to be so, isn’t that a fact? So couldn’t it be said that anyone thinking that James Dean is cool or a poser, be labeled as someone thinking falsely about something because it is a fact that there is no fact regarding James Dean’s coolness. Since this is your example, can’t the same train of thoughts be used towards your logic in determining sanity based on opinion? So either there is no such thing as sane or insane, and the people who think they are having a Martian’s baby are just as correct as people who think they aren’t, or, there really is a sane and insane but it has little to do with the logic you are trying to present.

”the excerpts from the dictionary were interesting to read together, but i am not sure what that was supposed to prove?”

I was relating the meanings of the words towards what I have been saying. The point of the dictionary was to say that a book which publishes the commonality of a society’s language chooses to a large degree to define sanity as more than just a simple opinion. If language is constructed by a society – for a society, and a dictionary is the publisher of this language, then society by its own linguistic definitions, agrees that sanity is not simply an opinion but rather is based on reasoning, logic, and objectivity. You can’t have it both ways – you can’t say society defines sanity, then dispute a book which society itself has defined which disagrees with you.


“whatever prejudices and assumptions about reason and whatnot are prevalent in the culture are going to b encoded into the dictionary.”

So prejudices and assumptions are not part of society and its opinions? Isn’t that what I’m fighting against here and you were fighting for? Which side are you on? Why is it okay to define the sanity of a human being with an opinion and persecute them for such but not okay to define sanity with an opinion in a dictionary? Again, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say a society defines sanity then spout about wrongful prejudices and assumptions found in the very language and definitions a society has constructed to use as a major tool for communication. You can’t say societal opinions should be the definition of tough philosophical problems such as sanity then say “whatever prejudices and assumptions about reason and what not are prevalent in the culture are going to be encoded into the dictionary” , without contradicting yourself.


“that doesn't settle anything when what we are talking about is a difficult issue about whether to accept social definitions; when it comes to, say, what counts as justice, we don't rely on the dictionary because everyone must decide for himself without submitting to easy answers;”

“Easy answers”? – You mean like opinions? Arriving at facts is far greater the challenge than opinions. The vast, and I’m talking the VAST majority of people fail to construct a logical train of thought when dealing with an “opinion” and just loosely base it upon whims, conditioning, trends, etc. Basically – most opinions are bullshit (for proof, just go into the world or read one of my many diatribes). If this were not true, explain segregation, war, apartheid, genocide, slavery and so on and so forth – all based on societal opinions and on many fronts from economics to religion. Opinions, ehhh, they’re good for movie and restaurant recommendations. Perhaps I just don’t take the fate of another person’s life as loosey-goosey as you do and would rather have fact rule over opinion to determine the incarceration, ostracism, or segregation of someone who may or may not deserve such.


“liekwise, with any tough philosophical problem, such as the nature of sanity, we shouldn't try to rely on what the dictionary says as if the people who write the dictionary are somehow expert intellectual authorites.”

Yes, you are soooo right!!!! We shouldn’t use words found in a dictionary to debate important issues. We should probably make up our own. I know, I’ll define insanity as “cuckoobananabeans” from now on. Hate to be the bearer of bad news but the people who publish dictionaries don’t come up with the words or their definitions. Sure they condense but they don’t create. They do nothing but try to show the history of the word through origins, the correct spelling and pronunciation for commonality, such as “likewise” instead of “liekwise”, and of course relate the meaning based upon the words of the conceiver/s of a particular word, thought, theory or fact. But of course, they dumb it down for us lay-men to build a bridge of common use for easier communication among our species. I find it hard to believe, and a little annoying that you’re downplaying the role of a dictionary when it seems every word you have used is somewhat in context with the definition found in these ghastly books. Or did you construct all these magnificent linguistic tools yourself? Should the English words I use, mean similar things to you, and likewise? Either start communicating telepathically or respect the very language you have chosen to use. Again, and again, and again, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say dictionary publishers no shit all yet use all the words found in such within their proper context to express thoughts. And you can’t say sanity should be based upon societal definitions then argue the definitions that some people in society have come up with are wrong. Are not the words found within a dictionary an agreeable way to communicate to one another? I guess now you are going to suggest that the meaning of words should all just become opinions. “Sanity”, no Mirriam/Webster did not invent nor define that word, but they did a hell of a lot more research than you or I combined into the origins and concepts behind that word. So lets look at the dictionary definition of sanity again:


Main Entry: san•i•ty
Pronunciation: 'sa-n&-tE
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sanite, from Latin sanitat-, sanitas health, sanity, from sanus healthy, sane
: the quality or state of being sane; especially : soundness or health of mind


Basically I’m thinking that they are defining sanity as a mental health issue. I think that’s an agreeable definition. I must say I agree with their statement and I think you probably do as well. However, where we differ again; I think mental health is an objective thing (thereby making it a treatable affliction with a possible known cause-effect), whereas you seem to think mental health should be decided upon by the opinions of a society (thereby whimsically allowing someone theoretically to never change yet be sane and insane at the same time depending on the company they are keeping).

Quick story before I go. In Vancouver there is an elderly Italian man, I would guess mid-sixties, who wanders the streets singing opera tunes. Often he shows up as you are sipping on a patio pint – he actually has a pretty decent voice too. Rumor has it this man lost his wife of many years to cancer. Now a lot of people, when they see/hear him suddenly belt out Un Bel Di at the top of his lungs, are taken back and remark about the “crazy old man”, etc. So here is a guy, lamenting over the loss of his lover, albeit in uncommon fashion, by singing operatic songs in the street. Surely this must ease his pain and loneliness and is likely the motivation behind his musical show. However, if it were up to the whims of many I’ve encountered, he’d be locked up somewhere and pumped full of debilitating drugs…and for what, being off key while singing Ava Maria? Or for feeling sad about the loss of a loved one and expressing this the best he knows how? I believe he is working in the realm of sanity and his mind is functioning fine and he is grounded in reality, again, albeit though an uncommon way to express oneself. However, if he was thinking that somehow singing opera on the streets would magically bring his wife back to life, then get the O.R. ready for a lobotomy. Societal opinions towards “uncommon”, “strange”, “odd”, “unique” behavior, is not a good basis for a label of either sanity, or insanity. Certainly external action is often a reflection of the internal workings of the mind, but it’s not always accurate when determining a person’s mental relationship with reality. Again, if there is factuality to sanity (ie. Can a person mentally comprehend the objective reality they exist in?), then a system that deals in “no fact”, such as you said about opinions, should not be used as the determining factor.


“but most cases are at the margins which depends on cultural norms. one culture's medicine man or warrior chief is another societies' criminally insane patient. one milieu's artistic genius is another's prozac consuming clerk.”

A medicine man trying to cure cancer by shaking chicken bones overtop of a dying person is not crazy in any culture, he is just ignorant by modern medical standards. Why? Because we know shaking chicken bones doesn’t cure shit-all. The medicine man is trying to do the same thing a millionaire doctor is doing at St. Joseph’s I.R. This is a fact, not an opinion. So the question remains, with the tools and education at hand for a medicine man, is it insane what he is doing? Factually, if you believe what he is trying to do is the same as the fancy doctor, however is part of a culture much less evolved medically, and what the fancy doctor does is not insane, then the medicine man can not be insane either. Ironically enough, under both the fancy doctor, and medicine man, patients die. Again though – societal opinions towards “uncommon”, “strange”, “odd”, “unique” behavior, is not a good basis for a label of either sanity, or insanity.


“A Sanity Clause. Ahhh, you can’t fool me. There is no such thing as Sanity Clause.”

Chico Marx – Night at the Opera

[e_dog]

trevor, this has been very interesting and has made me try to be more careful in expressing my views because people are apt to misinterpret what one writes. this has happened several times in our exchange. there are several points where simple misunderstanding has combined with genuine disagreement, and it is sometimes difficult to see which process of this complex is operating at a given moment. but let's try:

first, about dictionaries: i never said we should not use words found in a dictionary (so, while humourous, your comment about making up silly words not found in the dictionary, is quite the non sequitor); rather, i said we should not rely on the definitions that the dictionaries' author have proffered as the last word on the meaning of those words. after all, the dictionary is merely a guide; you did not learn the language (if you are a native speaker) by reading the dictionary, but by participating in a community of language users. you turn to the dictionary for help in understanding some words; but sometimes, when use or when the way we decide we weant to use a term, conflicts with the dictionary, we should reject or change what the dictionary says, not feel bound and restricted by the dictionary as if it were like bible or something.

second, "society" does not produce the dictionary; a small group of scholarly and business groups produce the various dictionaries for society. thus, there is no inconsistency between saying that society defines sanity but the dictionary does not. however, this raises the crucial point that in saying 'society' does X, we are speaking loosely; this is just an abstract convenient way to express all the complicated micro-processes that composed the reactions of many people and institutions to individuals; not all people within the society have the same power so naturally the activities of some, such as psychiatrists, will be more important to the way a society defines sanity.

this brings me to the most important point of misunderstanding. in several places i your latest post, you suggested that i take lightly the fact that people are incarcerated or instituionalized in accord with social definition s of abnormality, and you suggested that my rejection oif the objectivity of sanity means that i think that however sanity is defined socially is something that i accept. quite the contray. if anything, the thrust of my view is that we should always be skeptical of the way sanity is socially defined. far from accepting the repression of those regarded as mentally ill, i would not even seek, as you favor, to find an 'objective' basis to label them insane and thus treat or incarcerate them, i would rather say that almost no one should be held in an institution on any basis (whether or not someone imagines that it is objective). you wrote
"Perhaps I just don’t take the fate of another person’s life as loosey-goosey as you do and would rather have fact rule over opinion to determine the incarceration, ostracism, or segregation of someone who may or may not deserve such." my position is hardly 'loosey-goosey'; instead, i say that NO ONE ever "deserves" such treatment, even if it may be thought necessary (by those who hold power and call themselves authorities) to separate people for the public safety.


there are objective facts about our responses to behavior that involve labels like sanity. i.e. it is an objective fact that so and so called so- and -so 'crazy.' it is an objective fact that so-and-so is locked inside an asylum. thus to deny there is an objective truth about sanity is not to deny these sorts of facts. what i say is not objectively true is the answer to the question 'is X insane or sane?' clearly there can be objective facts ABOUT the answers to this question, such as the objective fact that Cindy said that Jane is insane. it is a fact that Cindy said the sentence "jane is insane"; but the content of the sentence is such that it is neither objectively true nor objectively false, because it is not the sort of sentence that is either true or false objectively. it may be a common practice in our culture to say that such questions have objectively true answers, and this practice may eb reflected in the dictionary; but that does not mean that this further belief is not itself a mere ideology, as i claim it is.

[Trevor]

Hi Edog,


“after all, the dictionary is merely a guide; you did not learn the language (if you are a native speaker) by reading the dictionary, but by participating in a community of language users. you turn to the dictionary for help in understanding some words; but sometimes, when use or when the way we decide we we want to use a term, conflicts with the dictionary, we should reject or change what the dictionary says, not feel bound and restricted by the dictionary as if it were like bible or something.”

I totally agree with you Edog regarding stone tablet restrictions set forth by the dictionary. For the record, (though not being accused of) I’m not a word fascist and hold similar beliefs as you do regarding the both necessary and unavoidable bend-ability of words, language and meanings. However, I do also realize that doing such is playing with fire. And you are also right that my initial learning of English was not from a dictionary. However, anyone who has gone through the school system and expanded their knowledge base of English beyond home taught phonetics, has had many mandatory moments using such. Thus, it can’t really be denied (nor do I think you are denying), that many, myself included, have had their language shaped to some extent, by the language and definitions found within a dictionary. And yes, it is a guide, but to deny the validity of their definitions is to also negate your own. Therein lays a major problem when dealing with opinions vs fact. You can’t say that sanity is a word which everyone’s opinion of its definition is valid (ie. Societal definitions), even if it goes against the definition set forth by linguistic experts (ie. People found within society), because everything can not conflict against something because it encapsulates all. If every version of the definition of sanity is accepted, including the one in the dictionary, then there is no conflict, and can not conflict because both the dictionary’s version, and the one’s created by others, are in fact good-to-go. Furthermore, when we start to change language too much for self serving needs instead of mass acceptance, the use for it as a communicating tool starts to break down. We may have the right to alter words how we see fit, however, it may not always be a wise decision. For some reason what I just wrote is reminding me of the Python skit, “I want to buy an argument.”

My last response to what you said about the use of dictionaries was to address this comment:

“such as the nature of sanity, we shouldn't try to rely on what the dictionary says as if the people who write the dictionary are somehow expert intellectual authorites”

And not to try and state an opinion like:

“i never said we should not use words found in a dictionary”

Although I did say:

“Yes, you are soooo right!!!! We shouldn’t use words found in a dictionary to debate important issues. We should probably make up our own. I know, I’ll define insanity as “cuckoobananabeans” from now on.”

It was still in regards to using the definition found in a dictionary as opposed to validating every person’s loose definition of such. Those comments were not directed towards the word itself, just as all comments within that particular paragraph were attempting, (I would like to stress attempting), to pertain to definition and not word structure.

“second, "society" does not produce the dictionary; a small group of scholarly and business groups produce the various dictionaries for society.”

I guess you’re right. I mean there isn’t a great big dictionary factory owned by the people where we all take equal turns defining words and running a press. However, what does a society produce? I mean aside from individuals who produce dictionaries because of society’s need or want for such? Intentionally, or unintentionally, everyone in a society who uses and helps shape the language has had a hand, (albeit most incomprehensibly miniscule), in the definitions found within the dictionary. Did not society create linguistic scholars to help transcribe the language it uses? Aren’t the scholars at a dictionary company, just transcribing the words taught to them by society? Did these scholars not initially learn the language the same way we did? Linguistic scholars are not artists, they are not creating new words nor their definitions but rather transcribing, to the best of their ability, the thoughts of those who did. Neither of us created the vast majority of the words we use so why should our new wanted definitions be more valid than the definitions birthed by its creator?


“thus, there is no inconsistency between saying that society defines sanity but the dictionary does not.”

And what is the societal definition of sanity? Is it the opinion of sanity by a society? And what is that? What is the opinion of a society? No matter what you say regarding that you will only be using a portion, a faction, a fraction, a selection of likeminded individuals within a society to express that. You will not be expressing the views of everyone within a society. Therefore, you are not representing a society, but rather a selective group of individuals within a society. Unless there is a wholly agreed upon definition by a society, you can’t say that society as a whole has defined something. The more I think on this the more I am leaning towards – society doesn’t define anything but rather individuals within a society do (though not always objectively). There is specialization for a reason and created out of human want or necessity. And these definitions are either accepted or dismissed by other individuals within that, or other societies. I’ve never agreed with generalizations (though guilty of occasionally using such), which is what seems to happen when things are mentioned as to the thoughts of a society, because generalizations is a misrepresentation of those who comprise the whole of society. And if the thoughts of certain people are being ignored for the thoughts of others, how can statements of such accurately reflect the two at the same time. So for me, it boils back down to who’s definition of sanity should be accepted and practiced? I like the dictionary’s version. It defines it as a mental health issue, which I’m sure it is agreed upon by many. Though, in my opinion, it is a sound definition of the word, it still is not the determining factor of who is sane or insane. However the initial conversation was;

“if you've ever doubted that what is sane or insane is entirely relative then reflect on this thought and action experiment.”

The relativity seems to be perception upon action. I think there is insanity, and then there are opinions and definitions of such. Where as you tend to say the opinions define sanity and that sanity is what a society makes it. I agree with you that it is often practiced as you have stated, though often faulty in truth and therefore not very useful.


“thus, there is no inconsistency between saying that society defines sanity but the dictionary does not.”

Yes there is because the words found in dictionaries are part of society. You can not say society, meaning all that found within it, then go on to exclude certain elements you disagree with. However, the dictionary is not the only definition…and simply defining something does not make the definition correct or incorrect. Simply stating something is not a validation of fact and that’s why we should dismiss opinions that seem inaccurate. And if we are dismissing opinions of those found within society, then there are factions within society who’s opinion do not help correctly define certain things. And if not all of society is allowed or able to participate, and not everyone is right, then it really isn’t society that is defining it, but rather certain groups or individuals found within the society. That’s why I tend to use a dictionary to help with definitions, because the scholars there have researched the conception, use, and the work done by other scholars in regards to words and their meanings. And these definitions are largely agreed upon. Linguistic experts, such as the ones found at dictionary publishing houses, are in fact, part of society (as were those who invented words) and make up a portion of such – just as are the people who agree with these linguistical alchemists. Furthermore, I am a part of society as are those who share my views. So its really impossible to say that a society, with all its varying opinions defines sanity (beyond defining it as something we all have varying opinions on), and say that these opinions are all valid except for business men and scholars who create dictionaries.

“this brings me to the most important point of misunderstanding. in several places i your latest post, you suggested that i take lightly the fact that people are incarcerated or instituionalized in accord with social definitions of abnormality, and you suggested that my rejection oif the objectivity of sanity means that i think that however sanity is defined socially is something that i accept.”

Well I do apologize, I honestly don’t think you are the type of person who takes things of this nature lightly (otherwise you wouldn’t be here still discussing it) nor do I think you would condone the mistreatment, sane or otherwise, of another human being. As you can probably tell, I have a penchant for dramatics and was trying to illustrate a point. That point being when we fail to define that which can be defined, and fail to practice known and proven things in an objective manner, then much confusion ensues and things such as wrongful diagnosis and mistreatment occurs. So again, sorry if I came off as belligerent or persecuting, it wasn’t my intent, but rather I was just trying to really nail down a point.

Where your standpoint confuses me is that it seems to really have no definition other than a cluster of it. I guess I’m having trouble wrapping my mind around a societal definition because of what I discussed earlier…because opinions within a society differ greatly from individual to individual, and from group to group, and all of these as a whole, create a society. So how is it ever possible to express a single thought upon something, and then say this is society’s thought when it conflicts against the thoughts of many within that society? Not everything can be valid if ever hoped to be practiced in a productive manner as more than simply a thought. There is nothing practical about validating everyone’s opinion. There are reasons as to why we are who we are. Sane or insane. They may vastly differ but they exist. And if there are reasons, then there are answers. Surely we can’t all just be formed randomly and who we become can’t simply be based on luck. So again, if there is a reason of why we are who we are, then the answer for the reason is the explanation and is the truth. And if there is a set reason and explanation, (even if unknown) – isn’t that something objective? Isn’t that a truth that should be accepted as such?


“far from accepting the repression of those regarded as mentally ill, i would not even seek, as you favor, to find an 'objective' basis to label them insane and thus treat or incarcerate them”

It’s not that I think we should seek out one holy objective answer to insanity, especially not for treatment purposes, (though a magic pill to cure all ailments would be nice), but rather I would like to see the truth behind any individual’s mental health issue be properly examined and treated. What works for one does not always work for another because each and every individual’s riddle-like “equation” of why we are the way we are, is a completely unique “equation” and should be treated as such. I don’t believe there is one answer when dealing with the “why’s” of sanity, but rather many answers. However I believe there is only one answer in regards to sane or insane. It is either Yes or No when applied to individuals.

“i would rather say that almost no one should be held in an institution on any basis (whether or not someone imagines that it is objective). you wrote.”

I agree with you there. Though never having the dis-privilege of spending time in a mental institution, I’ve seen and read enough about the horrors of such to be opposed to the widespread use of them.

“thus to deny there is an objective truth about sanity is not to deny these sorts of facts.”

I guess not. However, it does immediately dismiss what you just said. You are proposing that the truth about sanity is that there is no real truth. If this is so, then there can be no truth about no truth in regards to sanity. It becomes a useless circular thought. This is why objectivity is so very important because is does not validate everything and dismiss it at the same time. It separates fact from fiction.

“clearly there can be objective facts ABOUT the answers to this question, such as the objective fact that Cindy said that Jane is insane.”

However there can’t be an objective fact as to whether or not Jane is insane?? If this is so, then there can be no objective fact as to whether Jane is sane either. So really, there is no such thing as sane or insane, just people going around labeling and treating people as such…so we honestly have nothing to worry about and should actually end all treatment of this fictitious ailment because there is no truth to people’s sanity. But all kidding aside, the fact is; there are insane people whether we call them such or something different. There are people whose minds are not functioning in the manner to which a healthy mind functions. There are people whose brains are damage and diseased, causing them to function poorly, much in the same way a heart may get sick or the eyes may fail. This causes them to do irrational, and often harmful things or perceive the world falsely. These are facts. This truly does exist. Brains, like everything else, break down or mis-form. If this is correct, then there is objectivity to sanity. There is a guy who just shit in the middle of the road. He’s crazy, throw him in a nut farm. This is the subjectivity of sanity because we have no knowledge of why he did that. Both objectivity and subjectivity regarding sanity exist. I would like to see it practiced objectively so only those who are truly insane are treated (and treated compassionately), as such and work towards helping them recover. However, I don’t want to see the guy who shit in the middle of the road because his wife of twenty years had an affair with the milk man and he is having trouble dealing with such events, get thrown behind thick walls and fed cups of happy pills. And in my opinion, when dealing with opinion over fact, such occurrences are more likely to happen. Personally, I don’t think there are many truly insane people, and quite often, someone who is showing irrational behavior is probably more fatigued and mental/emotionally exhausted then crazy.


“it is a fact that Cindy said the sentence "jane is insane"; but the content of the sentence is such that it is neither objectively true nor objectively false, because it is not the sort of sentence that is either true or false objectively.”

Only if you believe that Jane can neither be truly sane nor insane. However if you believe there truly is a sane and insane, even if such sanity is defined by society, your logic here makes absolutely no sense. One minute you say that society defines sanity, therefore, though varied in definition and practice, sanity exists – which if you believe this to be true in any form is objectification, yet at the same time you say regarding something that you claim to exist, there is neither truth nor falsehood. Does sanity exist? We both seem to agree upon that much. You are trying to define it one way, I the other, yet we are both objectifying it because we both are stating what we believe to be true. So again, we are objectifying, though in disagreement as to how. The objectification of sanity seems inescapable.


“it may be a common practice in our culture to say that such questions have objectively true answers, and this practice may be reflected in the dictionary; but that does not mean that this further belief is not itself a mere ideology, as i claim it is.”

You can’t give an answer that is expected to be believed towards something that you claim has no true answer. You can’t say here is the real answer to something that has no real answer. It is an impossibility for that to exist. You also can’t make sense of a subject by saying everything is the answer, because everything also includes the counterpoints. And if you start to dismiss other people’s opinions or ideology because you feel they are wrong, then you are also starting to objectify the subject. Because the same world I live in, you live in, and to even form an ideology one must first take stock of what they think or know to be true (objectivity), otherwise what are you basing your ideology upon? What do you base your code of conduct upon? Your decisions upon? Opinion or fact? Sure you may not see a movie because a friend said it sucked and you’ll hate it, and its fine and harmless to live that aspect of your life that way, however, until you see that movie you will never know factually if you would like it or not. The danger lies in when this is applied to more serious issues.

A question I’d like to ask is, how would you treat someone with a mental illness, by using techniques you think are good, or by using techniques you know are good?

I guess my whole interpretation of your stance on sanity is; you say it exists but there is no true reason for it. There is no truth to why it happens or exists, yet it does, however at the same time it is nothing more than a society labeling people as such, wrongly or rightly, so it only sort of exists but we should still help those who “seem” crazy, to manage themselves in ways we deem are better for them.

Maybe I’m misinterpreting you but as it stands, none of that makes much sense to me.

I hate to have to leave it at that for now, but unfortunately I have to get going. Thanks for reply.

Trevor

[perezoso]

This is an needed and interesting debate, though I think it could be (excuse me if this seems "reductionist") simplified. My own view is that psychopathology and indeed sociopathology is FAR more prevalent--presently and historically--than most suburbanite consumers realize; moreover, some forms of psychopathology or insanity may be compatible with a high degree of "rationality"--a Mengele or a Pol Pot, as well as the usual examples of Hitler and Stalin, may have been quite content (and not ethically troubled by) murdering or ordering the murder of thousands of people, and yet they were not "certifiably" psychotic or deranged. Or in other words, they were psychotic, but this type of psychosis is generally looked at as "tyranny" or "sadism" or just plain fascism and not "real psychosis"; though I think radical psychologists such as RD Laing or Reich (usually just dismissed as quacks or perverts) did view many historical events and political figures as examples of a sort of a mass psychosis. I also have read some material by Foucault that suggests he had a similiar view, a sort of psychopathology of history.

AS Laing points out then expecting everyone to adhere to some "objective" notion of sanity--given the deaths of millions of people in 20th century to insane warfare and genocide--is quite unrealistic. And there are the behaviorist, Darwinian aspects to this issue as well--are baboons "sane"? If humans are primates --and surely we eat, experience pain, and fuck like animals-- then they can be expected to do primate sorts of things, like slaughter those primates that are weaker or less adept at making various tools. That may be obvious but an empirical psychology has to acknowledge this biological aspect, which is nearly always overlooked by philosophers and political scientists.

Nonetheless I think we have to agree that human-primates can make decisions and cause things to happen and that there must be in certain contexts criteria: if you have an abcessed tooth you choose to go to the dentist, not to the transmission mechanic. I think sanity and intelligence are requirements for a certain amount of information about particular events and situations; the sane person knows enough about possible consequences to make the sane and ethical decisions ( or perhaps the most cunning and devious ones). So it is not a matter of intention so much as knowledge of external factors, or knowing that if one does a certain thing then some sort of result will likely occur. The better chess player envisons possible scenarios 4-5 moves hard; the morons play pure tactics. And in some sense idiocy--common to all races and both genders-- may be a form of insanity. In regards to decisions, whether personal, ethical or scientific, the sane person is acquainted with the relevant implications and entailments of the decision he is pondering. IN deciding to eat beef, there are entailments and implications --economic and environmental--which obviously most humans overlook; it does not seem absurd to term that a type of mild sociopathology or psychosis of large numbers of humans.

[e_dog]

sounds to me that perezoso is describing 'rationality' not sanity.

but rational behavior is neither necessary nor sufficient for sane behavior.