Defining Insanity

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Mind
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I'm trying to define how somebody is sane, because I see a link to causality and sanity. To make it easier I will change actions to 'will'.
Emotion and logic help to determine the will, right?, without them there would be no motivation. Actually, this is what I'm questioning, is there another variable?
Majority influence: Even though I can't immediately think of a way to determine if somebody was more influenced by emotion or logic...
With this sort of thing you can just be certain about it and thats all that matters to me, truth is irrelevant which corresponds to how the future is not entirely certain, thus causality has limits. In terms of sanity/insanity: Perhaps somebody is defined as insane when one of either two things relate to their actions; 1) their logic is flawed 2) their logic is impeded when correlating to an action. (logic construes with morality, thus I mean that intellect has an amoral sense). Therefore, the majority influence on one's actions (when insane) is not of logic but of something else, like emotion. Say a psychopath. Their indifference and amorality sets the boundaries of logic due to either absence of emotion or certain emotions that have a negative impact.

Sane, is allowing logic to have majority influence, like saying 51% +, ( but I can't say that precisely, because it is undefined still), not allowing emotion to cause irrationality. Yes I know that rationality is attained through certain emotions, like compassion; but emotion is self insight, not corresponding to insight taken in through the society, thus latent.

Also, because I am new to this I wonder if emotion and logic are variables that affect each other, or are dependent on one another? This would change everything!
Importance: In the courts, when somebody pleas for insanity, people need to realise that there is no difference between somebody being logically impaired and people who feel unecessary to use logic for their will. So while people nowadays can diagnose the disorder that somebody has, a person who acted irrationally may be today's definition of sane, able to think very, very clearly, but emotion thrives their actions still, not logic, thats all that matters.
It would be insane for people to base purpose and will upon emotion, but without emotions there would be no will. So we are all somewhat insane, I would say humanity is more insane than sane. When we use logic I feel we tend to lead ourselves to a more selfless state and moral superiority, and when we use emotion we become selfish maybe because
We lack the ability to coalesce emotion throughout society (words are not feelings).

How would you define insanity, I'm not looking for Webster's definition. Also, plz! point out any mistakes or wrong assumptions in my argument. Leave libet out!!:rolleyes:

Thanks for reading!!! Smile

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,148 • Replies: 21

No top replies

@Holiday20310401,

Logic is a system/method and really can't be used as a meter for insanity, Sociopaths, often the most "violent" of the clinically insane are totally logical, totally rational, just highly machiavellian, or "the ends justify the means and I'll get there the most efficient way possible without exposing myself to opposition." Now that is pure logic. Insanity might be better defined as not processing reality in the same way your peers do.

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

Yes and that is where the disorder comes in, when their processes create conflicts in intellect to deviate from doing what is right. And I believe it is the disorder that is of course material is what causes change in the influence emotion and logic have on the will, or action. I'm trying to prove that logic can be hindered or can be ignored and still the will exists. But what defines the boundaries of logic and emotion being the influence upon the will; what is sane and insane in terms of amount of logic and emotion? Are humans all more consumed with emotion or logic? Which of the two really defines conscience. Or could you define conscience as more than one possibilities to exist.

'Will' 1: depending on pure logic- classification = ? (sane or insane)
'Will' 2: depending purely on emotion- classification = ? (sane or insane)
'Will' 3: depending on logic as majority influence = ? (sane or insane)
'Will' 4: depending on emotion as majority influence = ? (sane or insane)

I see sane as logic having majority influence upon the will or actions, the other 3 are insane, but to say that we do not correlate to the other three 'will's is false. We act upon those 4 at different times.

Question: What variables exist besides emotion and logic for the will?
Conscience: The sane 'will', the intent and motivator of right over wrong. The real question is at what point is the conscience displayed? Can it exist upon any of the four of the 'will's; or is conscience something that is triggered through causality, even a boolean system of thought would attribute to intention, but emotion is not a factor, it is simply pure logic.

When we have conscience our logic and emotion tend to affect one another, so we could say that conscience is a force that triggers the two variables to have effect for cause of sanity.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Or we could say that conscience triggers emotion to even exist, but that seems rather silly, could it be the other way around?

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

"Insanity" is not a medical term, i.e. it doesn't correspond to anything in clinical psychiatry. The word is still used in legal contexts.

There is a concept behind the psychiatric disorder, though what defines it as a disorder is unique to each diagnosis.

Since modern psychiatry has clearly described different illnesses in so much detail, the idea of "insanity" is very anachronistic -- it's almost medieval in concept.

So let me ask you, how does your idea of insanity differ from medicine's concept of a psychiatric illness?

2 Replies

@Aedes,

If a person has a disorder, they still have a 'will', and that should define their outcome as equal to those who are normal criminals. There should be no mental institution for the people with disorders. If they committed a crime, it was of their will, their will just happens to be insane, so place them in jail, an outcome of immoral will.

Also, off topic, have you read Macbeth? Wanted to define his sanity. lol. I believe him to be insane, and my analysis of sanity makes it easier to understand how Macbeth is insane and not sane.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

There is a problem in using logic as a parameter for deciding the level of sanity somebody acts with. Logic is a sort of moral edged linear construct decided perhaps by the individual or perhaps by society in general or a single person/group; it seems entirely apt for use in the relation between x and reality, yet one must understand that there is always the concept of good/bad found in the logic of an action. Of course we can understand the logic apparent during a physics experiment (a different kind of logic, methinks), but I think the kind of logic you're talking of in terms of ascertaining the sanity of an individual is relevant to concepts of morality.

I think that most of the time a mentally ill person acts within logical parameters, yet the a -> b system (where '->' is logic) becomes confused into x -> b, and the logic becomes of secondary importance to the correlation between x/a and b. So for example where 'eating' (a) is followed logically by 'finishing eating' (b), an 'insane' person might think 'smoking' (x) is followed logically by b. So one could say that the insane person considers x and a to be integral to each other; in this case it is a widely held opinion that a smoke is part of a meal, but yet this could be consdered as illogical, and that logically smoking is an entirely different activity.

So what I mean to say is that it is probably not the logic that is confused but the objective actions that logic comes between which then cause the logic to appear illogical, and perhaps not the other way round (so the logic doesn't become illogical thus causing the objective actions to change, instead the objective actions change and the logic appears illogical). I think this infers that a/b/x are somewhat delusionary in nature, as I believe is the notion of perception.

1 Reply

@Doobah47,

To put it another way is .. What makes somebody insane? Is it their lack of logic or their lack of moral intent? If they lack moral intent then the outcome is the same as if somebody is insane as defined today by the courts, being lack of logic. Because logic follows through with morality better than emotion. Because after all, what defines conscience... moral intent or logic?

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

If a person has a disorder, they still have a 'will', and that should define their outcome as equal to those who are normal criminals. There should be no mental institution for the people with disorders. If they committed a crime, it was of their will, their will just happens to be insane, so place them in jail, an outcome of immoral will.

There is neither a legal nor medical concept of "will", though, so I don't see how this is possible. Furthermore, untreated mental illness is known to suffer greatly in prison, and poor outcomes including recidivism (repeat offense) and suicide improve if such offenders receive appropriate treatment.

People can have a capacity to understand consequences -- and that capacity can be demonstrably impaired by mental illness. People can have a capacity for judgement -- and this can be demonstrably impaired by mental illness.

The legal standard for "criminally insane", therefore, is directed towards people whose have a demonstrable inability to understand consequences and to make judgements accordingly.

I had a patient with schizophrenia once when I was in medical school who was repeatedly fired from his jobs because he was utterly convinced that the crows in the parking lot were talking to him, insulting him, and commanding him. He kept running outside to scare them away, and would go out and throw things at them to chase them off. This guy, who had very severe schizophrenia, did not have the capacity to differentiate reality from his hallucinations and delusions. So the whole concept of "will" is pretty trivial when one interfaces with reality in a wholly pathologic way.

Quote:

Also, off topic, have you read Macbeth?

Yes, though it's been a while. Lady Macbeth, however, is the classic literary figure in history who suffered from symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Quote:

Wanted to define his sanity. lol.

You can probably find a copy of the DSM-IV or one of its newer editions online. This is a standard text that lists diagnostic criteria for certain psychiatric disorders. Psychiatric disorders are often organized into mood (aka affective) disorders, which inlude depression, mania, bipolar, and anxiety; thought (aka psychotic) disorders, which include schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder; personality disorders, including borderline and antisocial disorders (and many others); dissociative disorders (like multiple personality disorder, amnestic disorder, and fugue states). There are others that I don't know how to categorize so well (I'm not a psychiatrist, though psychiatry permeates all of medicine) -- like PTSD (which I believe is a type of anxiety disorder), eating disorders, dementia, delirium, and others.

It's a great exercise, though, to look back at literary figures. I'd love to do that with The Brothers Karamazov. I guess King Lear is another Shakespeare character worthy of this kind of analysis.

Basically, the best authors understand that people are NOT entirely rational, and they are often self-destructive. This has been elaborated very well by modern psychology, which indeed undermines the concept of the will. Everyone from Freud and Jung onward understands that the rational part of us, which one might term the will, is constantly under assault by irrational aspects of us.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

The legal standard for "criminally insane", therefore, is directed towards people whose have a demonstrable inability to understand consequences and to make judgements accordingly.

Inability to understand and make judgements is due to lack of logic right? Or causes lack of logic, either way.:rolleyes:
What is the difference between somebody who lacks ability to have intellectual cognition and those who choose logic to have a lesser potential upon their will.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Inability to understand and make judgements is due to lack of logic right? Or causes lack of logic, either way.

I don't think logic is the normal currency of our thought process except when we're deliberately trying to "figure something out".

For example, your ability to restrain yourself from killing someone who looks at you the wrong way is NOT the result of logic. You have the capacity to judge the importance / lack thereof of his look, the technical / moral / legal implications of killing him, the way such an action would greatly depart from a societal norm (and why this is relevant to a trivial gaze from someone), etc. But these judgements are simply lacking in certain people who have either psychiatric disorders or cognitive disorders (like dementia, mental retardation, etc).

Quote:

What is the difference between somebody who lacks ability to have intellectual cognition and those who choose logic to have a lesser potential upon their will.

Again, I don't subscribe to the importance of will and logic to a discussion about criminal insanity and clinical mental illness. So I'd conceptualize the issue this way: some people have impaired judgement, some don't. There are some people with the capacity for normal judgement who commit crimes, who do violent or stupid or regrettable things. In most court cases people with normal judgement don't even attempt to claim that they have mental illness; but if they do they're subject to a lot of psychiatric scrutiny in which their capacity to reason, to understand consequences, etc are analyzed. Mental illnesses often fall into recognizable patterns, so it's hard to fake in front of people who are expert in making these diagnoses. Furthermore, it only takes witnesses to contradict a claim of chronic mental illness.

In other words, you don't have to be crazy to be a bad person.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

I don't think logic is the normal currency of our thought process except when we're deliberately trying to "figure something out".

Yes but in order to act or continue an action one would need to figure something out in order to determine it's intentions, and importance.

In terms of our thought process, what word would you consider it to be if not 'logic'.

2 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

It seems to me that Holiday is mistaking "logic" proper for following or not following Cultural and Moral indoctrination. There is nothing inherently moral or ethical about logic. It is a method, a largely arbitrary one at that. Also there is nothing inherently logical about morals and ethics. Its apples and Oranges.

2 Replies

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

There is nothing inherently moral or ethical about logic.

True, but couldn't we say that we are able to act morally because we have the logical capacity, therefore making morality a sort of substituent of logic.

Also there is nothing inherently logical about morals and ethics. Its apples and Oranges.[/quote]

That would depend on whether you believed morals are universal, right? (throughout those of a consistent intellectual margin, like humanity).
You can't deny that there is something humanly universal with morality. Perhaps morality is a product of something universal of humanity, like our survival instinct. Therefore, a way of defining morality would be to look at the causal forces that govern it. Survival instinct promotes the need for virtue. As humanity learns and progresses as a society we realise that surviving individually is nonsense, that the survival instinct relates to a more coalesced view, that of virtue for the whole society, thus establishing an outcome of morality; an action that is moral is one that
perpetuates society in a positive way.

0 Replies

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

There is nothing inherently moral or ethical about logic.

True, but couldn't we say that we are able to act morally because we have the logical capacity, therefore making morality a sort of substituent of logic.

GoshisDead wrote:

Also there is nothing inherently logical about morals and ethics. Its apples and Oranges.

That would depend on whether you believed morals are universal, right? (throughout those of a consistent intellectual margin, like humanity).
You can't deny that there is something humanly universal with morality. Perhaps morality is a product of something universal of humanity, like our survival instinct. Therefore, a way of defining morality would be to look at the causal forces that govern it. Survival instinct promotes the need for virtue. As humanity learns and progresses as a society we realise that surviving individually is nonsense, that the survival instinct relates to a more coalesced view, that of virtue for the whole society, thus establishing an outcome of morality; an action that is moral is one that
perpetuates society in a positive way.

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Yes but in order to act or continue an action one would need to figure something out in order to determine it's intentions, and importance.

But not necessarily logically. We have intuition, experience, visceral reactions, and (see below) pattern recognition that inform our conscious decisions LONG before logic enters the picture.

Say a scrawny little girl tells you to give her your wallet. Now say a huge man with a gun tells you to give him your wallet. You are NOT going down a logical algorhithm of what is likely to happen in each scenario given your potential reactions. You know immediately that one is a mortal threat and the other may as well be a joke.

Quote:

In terms of our thought process, what word would you consider it to be if not 'logic'.

The best known is pattern recognition. You recognize scenarios based on patterns of features. You extrapolate into a new scenario based on a 'best fit' pattern. It's how you can take a novel situation and assess threat, assess consequences, etc.

Logic is almost never part of it until you begin to deliberately think step-by-step.

Do you play chess? It is a great example. Masters of abstract strategy games like Chess and Go mostly do not play by logic under the same conditions that a novice will. Why? Because the experienced master will recognize situations based on patterns and know bsaed on this experience how to efficiently limit his thought process. For instance, it is a position of strength to park a knight on the 5th rank just in front of an opposing pawn. It is a position of weakness to put your pawns along a diagonal that traps your bishop behind them. These scenarios are immediately recognized. But a novice will NOT recognize the advantage and disadvantage of these scenarios, and will have to very deliberately think them through, move by move, possibility by possibility -- i.e. logically.

Why do you go to the shortest line in the supermarket? Why do you answer the door when you hear the doorbell? Why do you brush your teeth before bed? It's not simply unconscious habit -- you're living your life according to a pattern. And that pattern will translate to a new supermarket, or to the door of a hotel room, or a new toothbrush.

Same with moral decisions, which are very well established in the cognitive science literature as visceral and not logical. People will superimpose a logical rationale upon moral decisions, but that doesn't mean the moral judgements were initially made logically. Furthermore, while I find it impossible to talk about moral universals (because that's a metaphysical presumption that cannot be reconciled empirically), there is no reason to presume that common moral positions that transcend cultures must be logically-based as opposed to anything else.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

But not necessarily logically. We have intuition, experience, visceral reactions, and (see below) pattern recognition that inform our conscious decisions LONG before logic enters the picture.

Doesn't experience rely upon perception and the logical ability to make sense of it. As for intuition, I never thought of it as separate from logic, I sort of thought of it as a single instance of thought, as opposed to connecting the dots; but still in the same framework as logic. To me, intuition is like an advantage that one has with a higher level of intellect. As one gets smarter, they see patterns that they can compile into a package so as to never have to look at the substituents of the package but merely the entirety in itself as an instance, much easier to process.... But I suppose that people nowadays know the true nature of intuition so I'd better discard this trail of intuitions before I get carried away in false predicates. Wink

Actually, (sorry for this) Surprised

; at the end of that blurb I thought to use the word predicate as if it were to make sense in the sentence without knowing what that word actualy meant, so I looked it up and found it quite suitable. Perhaps intuition is when neurons form a pattern like some aromatic link (but with a center); that becomes bigger as the aromatic becomes bigger due to more substituents being collected. These substituents could be pattern recognitions that can all link to a 'package'. The brain could decide to access the center of the aromatic, package, compilation of thoughts for outcome of intuition instead of accessing the substituents, actual ring of aromatic for the purpose of logic (as you define it to be)
( I will make a visual and post it some time ).

Aedes wrote:

Logic is almost never part of it until you begin to deliberately think step-by-step.

But it is still the brain accessing information (and thats the importance), so should the word that I use be cognition?

Aedes wrote:

Do you play chess?

Yes, but didn't like it enough to become any more than a novice.

Aedes wrote:

there is no reason to presume that common moral positions that transcend cultures must be logically-based as opposed to anything else.

So really, moral positions are a result of an outcome registered by the mind. We take an action and we process it to see what results occurred, thinking about what effect it had on the self, and on everybody else that we feel has potential on the self. ( I don't see humanity really showing the tendency to think for what has no potential upon the individual, nor should it ever start doing so).

Then that action can become a pattern and can thus become a form of intuitive moral sense, opposed to having to do moral reasoning.

Thanks for reading:), let me know if I'm on the right track:o:confused: Surprised

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

If there is really such thing as a universal moral, it is likely to be coded in the DNA not a universal moral constituent of Logic. Inferencial/Experiencial logic isn't formal logic it's accessing memory and acting accordingly. Dogs do it, and dogs have a fairly universal set of "morals", or rather, behavioral tendencies. One problem here is defining morals versus behaviors. One of the few almost universal "morals" is the taboo of cannibalilsm. So if morals are universal and logical one of the only ways of being deemed insane is to eat someone? Or could it be more simple to explain the taboo as a general behavioral tendency not to eat people? A universal behavior can really only be described as a moral by labeling the already existing behavior. Whereas the tendency to steal (take what you want) is also a universal behavior, yet in most cultures and societies it is considered immoral, depending on from whom something is being stolen. A universal behavioral tendency to protect what is yours from beng stolen, on the other hand, is sometimes considered a good moral, and sometimes considered a bad moral. So a monk who has taken a vow of poverty and non-violence would be considered immoral if he were to defend his cloister from being robbed. His adopted logical framework would say that he should not defend his property, yet the general population would not likely consider him insane for protecting his cloister and its belongings, although its illogical to break a vow and risk the assumed condemnation of the Lord. In Nevada, however, it is still legal to shoot someone who is on your property, they don't even have to be posing a threat to life or property in any way. This poses another problem, confusing logic with law. In nevada I would not even be ordered to have a psych eval if this were to happen, yet in Rhode Island I might be charged with murder and forced to undergo some sort of psychological eval. In nevada it is logical by law to kill an tresspasser, whereas in Rhode Island it wouldn't be. So would I be insane in Nevada but not in Rhode Island? ... and it goes on.

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

Er ..... Insane in Rhode Island but not in Nevada

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

( like 'universal' = humanity ) I did not mean like the entire universe.

If somebody is moral as opposed to immoral what outcome in the long run would that person have to society, and society's progression. That person would have more virtue and supply more virtue to society.
Not to mention if the society is placed in a system that is immoral all together there would be virtue placed in a small group of people rather than coalesced throughout the whole society, and is that really getting the society anywhere; no it would be a stagnant race.
I don't know how to word this but I see acting morally as having outcomes of universal-like constituents, thus making morals universal in respect to that society.
Lets say society's progress can be labeled as an exponential line. I believe that society corresponding to moral righteousness would steepen the equation, quickening society's perpetuation, not just morally but in general. so the sort of equation would be y= Ax3
and the society corresponding to immorality would cause the exponential line to flatten. say the equation becomes y= Ax1.1

Therefore we can label sane as intent upon right over wrong, not just the ability to 'know' right vs. wrong. Potentially, whats the difference. Sane would be more rationale to assume fundamental virtue for the society.
If somebody knows the difference between right and wrong, for the most part, their intentions are for right as opposed to wrong. If a person is strictly otherwise that labels them with a disorder ( I'm talking about somebody who seriously lacks wanting to act morally ), as if every action has amoral intentions.; therefore the will for virtue coalesced becomes indifferent just as if somebody who is logically flawed can't know the difference; like society is themselves and therefore immoral and thus insane.

1 Reply

Defining Insanity

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know