Is madness inherent to life itself? -

[BrunoMattei]

See title. Do you believe that madness is just a fact of life or is it society that invokes madness? If society invokes madness then is society compliant or is it accidental? What is the opposite of madness if it is inherent? Is this not reality?

 

[Rand /pol/]

wut

 

[ProgKing of the North]

No, but Sparta is

 

[ButterFings]

Madness is invoked by the importance we humans place on ourselves.

 

[mr.moon1488]

Yes

 

[ES 195]

Well yeah. You can't be crazy if you're dead.

 

[break these cuffs]

Yes

>comedy
doubt.bmp

 

[Vorhtbame]

You'd have to be crazy to think insanity is normal.

 

[Exorbital Columnations]

Insanity is an integral part of human life. This is explained by the axiom "Bitches be crazy, yo.".

 

[ScamL Likely]

Madness is a concept that holds no meaning without a societal context because madness is deviation from the norm and without society there is no norm to deviate from. The natural state of being without society is flux or chaos because society is an ordered system superimposed over the natural chaos of the world. That's not to say humans would be more "sane" without society but that the very meaning of insane or aberrant behaviors would be rendered moot.

 

[Dennis_Prager]

Madness is a concept that holds no meaning without a societal context because madness is deviation from the norm and without society there is no norm to deviate from. The natural state of being without society is flux or chaos because society is an ordered system superimposed over the natural chaos of the world. That's not to say humans would be more "sane" without society but that the very meaning of insane or aberrant behaviors would be rendered moot.

Society isn't the dictator of the human definition of madness, I'm sure Biology would be a better-explaining agent for why we perceive certain things as crazy. For example: a completely lonely human being who has never been part of any society at all would inevitably find it a completely crazy idea to try to eat an animal looking like like this; and that in the complete absence of any interference from societal norms. What would dictate that person's conclusion, in that case, would be the frog's defense system called 'aposematism'; it's as if the frog communicated that it would be more than definitely a really bad idea if that person tried to attack it. So they'd think it would be a retarded thing to try to eat it, even though there is no society. In a simpler example: he would also find it crazy for someone or even himself to eat dog feces instead of good-looking meat, just like we would; and society makes no difference there.

Another thing is that deviation from the norm is not always considered madness. Einstein wasn't considered a mad-man when the media started presenting him as the most notable deviation in matters of human intellect. People don't see deviations from the norm as madness as long as they can reason that through (that doesn't mean they have to be right, but they do have to convince themselves that they know or at least have an idea of what that thing or idea is and where it came from). When someone calls you mad, that's most likely because they can't explain what you're doing or your motives to behave like that. When someone calls an idea 'madness', it isn't because it is different; it just means they feel insecure and can't wrap their heads around it. In any case people identify you or your ideas as mad or completely crazy in a negative manner, just honestly and clearly speak your mind in a calm and understanding manner. Even if you both conclude that you were actually wrong and 'deviant' all along, the other person will definitely change his mind about you being "mad" in the past for having those ideas.

In that person's example I cited earlier, he sure would think of it as madness to eat the frog in a normal context. But as soon as he found himself in a deeply suicidal mindset, the idea of attacking and eating that frog wouldn't sound that insane, since he would know the motivation behind that action then.

In sum: people only call things mad when they're insecure and can't understand them.

 

[Sofonda Cox]

I think it depends on how many layers of superstition, faith and hope you can sustain between your consciousness and reality itself. If sanity is a spectrum, with 'bliss' on one end and 'madness' on the other, layers of buffer could push you toward bliss and away from madness. If a person only has a few layers, the risk of madness leaking through would be much higher. Hell, with fewer layers, they could even lubricate the slippy slide into lunacy. Interesting question.

 

[Dom Cruise]

The reason for madness is there has to be an element of chaos in the human psyche otherwise you would never get genius or innovation.

It's the same reason we get birth defects and other mutations, without a little risk and chaos life couldn't evolve and would remain stagnant and that's the same as death, so sometimes you get mutations that are good and sometimes they are bad, but there has to be room for mutations, there has to be room for chaos and the element of chance.

 

[ScamL Likely]

Society isn't the dictator of the human definition of madness, I'm sure Biology would be a better-explaining agent for why we perceive certain things as crazy. For example: a completely lonely human being who has never been part of any society at all would inevitably find it a completely crazy idea to try to eat an animal looking like like this; and that in the complete absence of any interference from societal norms. What would dictate that person's conclusion, in that case, would be the frog's defense system called 'aposematism'; it's as if the frog communicated that it would be more than definitely a really bad idea if that person tried to attack it. So they'd think it would be a exceptional thing to try to eat it, even though there is no society. In a simpler example: he would also find it crazy for someone or even himself to eat dog feces instead of good-looking meat, just like we would; and society makes no difference there.

Another thing is that deviation from the norm is not always considered madness. Einstein wasn't considered a mad-man when the media started presenting him as the most notable deviation in matters of human intellect. People don't see deviations from the norm as madness as long as they can reason that through (that doesn't mean they have to be right, but they do have to convince themselves that they know or at least have an idea of what that thing or idea is and where it came from). When someone calls you mad, that's most likely because they can't explain what you're doing or your motives to behave like that. When someone calls an idea 'madness', it isn't because it is different; it just means they feel insecure and can't wrap their heads around it. In any case people identify you or your ideas as mad or completely crazy in a negative manner, just honestly and clearly speak your mind in a calm and understanding manner. Even if you both conclude that you were actually wrong and 'deviant' all along, the other person will definitely change his mind about you being "mad" in the past for having those ideas.

In that person's example I cited earlier, he sure would think of it as madness to eat the frog in a normal context. But as soon as he found himself in a deeply suicidal mindset, the idea of attacking and eating that frog wouldn't sound that insane, since he would know the motivation behind that action then.

In sum: people only call things mad when they're insecure and can't understand them.

In a clinical setting psychiatric issues are considered to be disorders when they interfere with one's life, the assessment of which includes expressly social aspects. You can't separate the idea of understanding the human psyche from the context of society because all inquiries into it stem from observing people that society deems dysfunctional in an attempt to make them functional again. Sanity and insanity are social constructs in that they're historically and functionally predicated around behavior that fits in with social norms or doesn't. It isn't all strictly biological even if there are specific disorders with biological causes.

 

[The Fool]

Well OP is vague and incoherent as fuck, but, judging from the replies of this thread, I take it the question here is specifically about sanity in regards to empathy, being able to empathize with others and understand if they believe how you think and act is rational or not.
Well, I don't think anyone can answer that. There are many, many people who are very old and very empathetic and sane, but also there's nobody who's lived long enough to lose their empathy over time. The statistical answer would be "no".

 

[Emperor Julian]

Well we're evolved to pick fruit from tree's, murder a big elephant for food and hang about in small tribes wondering around the plains. So all this is pretty outside of our species comfort zone.

 

[Gravityqueen4life]

we live in a society afterall.