Insanity vs. Sanity

[pk.]

That is true and I agree that 'abnormal' deviations can have utility, but your very own 'self' is created from social relations so utility should keep in consideration greater society (democracy, utilitarianism etc.)

 

[trees_please]

Seperate from law or the Mental Health field, I don't think sanity exists nor does insanity. Its a cultural delusion that people can be normal and abnormal. It boils down to fitting a square peg in a round hole. Its the absurdist hypocracy in which we live, that someone else can call another person a "weirdo" when they themselves, the modern man, is a broken, fragmented individual clinging not even to ethics or morality but prewritten laws and hallucinations of satisfaction.

In short, the game was rigged before you born.

Bingo. Mental disorders are a social construct based on theory and subjectivity, and not fact/objectivity.

 

[Furanku_]

I think asking ourselves what determines normal and abnormal is not the right question, as it leaves room for believing this determining should be the case. Rather we should be asking how is this dynamic created to begin with. Why is it that human beings feel the need to put labels on certain behaviors and personalities and then exile certain ones. Personally, the way it is seen from here, is that there is no such thing as normal and abnormal people. Under all our thoughts and judgments, we are all completely the same. As for the reasoning to why stereotyping exists, well I can't say for certainty, but I would be sure it has to do with expressing our individuality and up-keeping our false images. Why do people think talking out loud to yourself is crazy but deluding yourself with thoughts is not? We are all completely fearful of being ordinary, maybe this is why we judge and stereotype, to keep this dynamic of uniqueness present, which is a complete illusion. We all want to pretend we are separate, but when we believe and feed this illusion, we suffer. It's just a tragic comedy, an unneeded drama.

 

[Sittingbear]

I would say, that at the core, man is a social animal and that as such when an animal engages in a behavior which jeopardizes the safety and continuation of the pack as a whole it is stigmatized. However, this has nothing to do with the cause of the offending behavior. Instead, I believe that societies actions, while at times obviously and woefully ignorant, are not based in hatred and spite for individuals but in a primal fear of both danger and the unknown. I was a psychiatric patient multiple times in both long and short term facilities.
Here is what I have found from my time on the inside of psychiatric facilities:
Generally the cause of the problem behaviors, whether depressive, psychotic, antisocial borderline etc etc, is a result of BOTH nature and nurture. This is not as obvious to all as it should be.
Most of the factors which cause mental illness, for lack of a better term, are outside of the control of the person themselves. However some, such as heavy substance abuse, are not. (this is a personal opinion which I understand may go against other philosophies in this community, so apologies if it offends)
Aspergers is a very different ball game and I would generally never describe a person on the Autism spectrum as insane unless they were undergoing a psychotic break.
The general goal of any psychiatric treatment is to allow the patient to experience a higher quality of life. Even though in other times a person who is schizo-effective would be regarded as a prophet society has evolved (or at least changed) so that a person with that condition cannot experience a high quality of life without help for the most part.
Mental illness is over diagnosed. Ever third person on the street has some diagnosis these days and that cannot possibly be accurate because we would never have survived as a society debilitating illness is that common.

Please note that I was in long term programs and generally am not referring to mild instances of mental crises. I can only draw from what I have experienced myself.

As for the initial post: I define sanity as a person who is not a danger to themselves or others.

 

[steve022]

There may be people who truly are "insane" but a lot of people who are diagnosed with mental disorders really aren't "insane" just different in some way. I would even apply this to the so called "severe" conditions like bipolar, schizo, etc. Some people might have it and function in the world and not really even appear "insane". However, they still get labeled as such due to experiences that are seen as "abnormal" by doctors. Also, even among the truly "insane", most of them had circumstances that would drive anybody mad like growing up in a very bad home or very unfortunate circumstances. Also, it is interesting to note that there is no gene for any mental disorders or even for "insanity" so in effect we could all develop it under the right (or wrong) circumstances.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

^ All mental diseases are comprised of excesses or deficits of normal human mentations, but so severe that the person fails at the basic tasks of life expected of them by the society in which they live. What we do not find are mental illnesses that involve mentations completely alien in nature to anyone without that illness. This is helpful for having compassion for people with mental problems -- they're not alien species whose inner workings are inscrutible and unpredictable, just folks who have a bit too much (or too little) of an otherwise good and perfectly normal thing.

There's much debate over whether High Functioning Autism (formerly known as Asperger's Syndrome) is indeed a disease, since it's thought that a large number of them -- perhaps a an overwhelming silent majority who never present for diagnosis or treatment -- don't fail at life. They suffer in ways different from "neurotypicals" (a term worth deconstructing if there ever was one!), and in ways most folks have trouble personally relating to. But there are livelihoods and lifestyles in which they tend to thrive, and can't really be said to be in need of psych help.

 

[Zerrr]

I only read the op, but this video might add value to the thread.

I can also dig up one by a college professor discussing a similar view. I think he questioned whether or not Jesus would have been considered to have schizoaffective disorder.







Also, apologize if my post is completely irrelevant.

 

[herbavore]

We have gone sick by following a path of untrammeled rationalism, male dominance, attention to the visual surface of things, paracticality and bottom line-ism.

I like that he says that the 20th century is an attempt at self healing; rejecting linear values by an archaic revival(trance, nudity, scarification, gender fluidity etc being some of his examples). But I feel like so much of this is, whether in the 60/70's or now is so full of derailment and an undercurrent of desperation that it is sometimes hard to tell the difference between healing and self-destruction; much like I felt as an incarcerated teenager, fighting against the "treatment" for my madness but blindly fighting against my authentic self just as hard. I tended to romanticize madness back then. While I agree with everything Mckenna is saying in this video, over a long lifetime I now see it as much more complex. If anything, it is humbling.

 

[Ninae]

The sanity of a tree is pure and uncorrupted - closer to the source - or we'd all be fucked.

 

[LandsUnknown]

It's very hard to define sanity when someone can have all the 'symptoms' of insanity without ever doing anything that is reckless, harmful, or otherwise detrimental. Some people may be 'insane' in this sense, but many that are diagnosed as such aren't. I myself actually have many symptoms of 'insanity' (paranoia, random hallucinations, strange ideas and thinking, etc.) but I can say that I don't do stuff that is really detrimental to me and none of it bothers me much, if at all.

 

[thujone]

Given this information, I ask what determines normal and abnormal, or sanity vs. insanity, in a world where philosophical, intellectual and cultural diversity is so high? Could factors like the information age and the internet contribute to a higher degree of subjectivity around social norms and thus acceptance of differences?

I think it's all down to how sociable/amiable you are. Can be completely batshit sociopathic and people will raise you on a pedestal and form a cult of personality around you and elect you as the CEO even if you meditate by soaking your feet in public toilets and fire people just for looking at you funny, or cause massive ecological and cultural damage to whole countries, because that's OK too as long as the end result is creating desirable products for the consumer market. On the other hand you can be completely sane and choose to believe nothing without corroborating evidence and people will call you nuts because you're not ready to blindly pledge fealty to what society has for some reason determined to be the acceptable world view. In short, if you smile at people and talk in a soft tone they will find all sorts of reasons to praise you but if your views are for any reason offensive to their paradigms they will instead focus on whatever evidence is available to marginalize you, to the extremes of inventing new classifications of mental illnesses just to call otherwise normal people "dysfunctional" and put them on drugs to "fix" the problem.

 

[VampireBalloon]

While this may be true to some extent, that does not necessarily depend upon what people would call sane or insane. Yes, most people's acceptability into society is based upon how "tolerant" they are of other beliefs, regardless of how right/wrong they are, but now we are venturing into the realms of morality. In terms of sanity/insanity, it is very difficult if not impossible to make a distinction. However, "crazy", "insane", and other words are thrown around so loosely today that most don't even think to stop and consider the denotation of those words. There are extremes, as in everything, but it is a very fuzzy, subjective line when dealing with such a topic. Yes, there are severe things happening to everyone as a result, but really, I belive that mental illnesses and insanity are different kettles of fish. Some mental disorders may CAUSE insanity, and insanity can be CONSIDERED a mental disorder, but this doesn't apply to everything psychological. Sanity vs insanity is by and large determined by "normality", it seems, and I personally don't believe this should be the case at all.