No one is really 'insane'- there is only the mentally different.?

Question:Why is it one person's right to decide that another is wrong and they are correct. What stops the insane from being the sane and the sane from being the insane?

Surely this is just the tyranny of the majority?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: Why is it one person's right to decide that another is wrong and they are correct. What stops the insane from being the sane and the sane from being the insane?

Surely this is just the tyranny of the majority?

You're right. If you think your pants are made of puppies and that TVs like to eat ice cream, you are actually a perfectly reasonable person who will have no trouble living in the world. Clearly it's all just completely subjective.

agreed!
many of lifes biggest achievers have suffered from so called mental illnesses.

The inmates have been in charge of the asylum for so long that no one even notices anymore.

Sad but true.

Love and blessings Don

insane is a hard concept to define yes, but then all words and concepts are hard to define.

basically, people classed as "insane" for whatever reason are just too hard to deal with if they are not kept all together somewhere. they are really erratic and unpredicable, so buerocracy has been invented as a way to get them into a confined space and save the environment for the rest of us "sane" people.

people would also argue they need specialist help and its only available in central locations.

There are various forms and stages of insanity.

The eminent mathematician and luminary of the intelligentsia spoke thus : ..

A truly intelligent person will have reason to counteract the unseen but so heard voices in the mind ''

There are voices in the head, that one can silence easily.

Then the acute stage of excruciating pain,, when argument is successful, the hells furies literally send piercing pain into ones head ...

But psychotherapist assures me I am brighter than he is , and the general practitioner was amazed at my good health and fitness ...

What is a majority but a crowd of sheep led by an all too vocal ambitious mega-ewe.

Such Is Life ...

in my opinion, by human law, there are certain things which we find to be 'abnormal' for example, someone with multi personalities, we could consider insane because that person is abnormal to us, they cannot continue in one state of mind because they're not living with us rite there and then, there somewhere else. or take a serial killer for example, they're usually labeled as insane..in your eyes is it logical to go around killing people for no reason? you would view a serial killer as abnormal. its not so much as your wrong im rite, its all in the human law...our mind draws a line between normal and abnormal....

i have been in a rehab house, to pick up my nephew,i know i dont want to be there

Generally speaking anyone who operates outside of the established equilibrium of the social context from which they are from can be considered so by the majority because they don't really have to know the individual. But we know that each and every individual has the responsibility of his or her own conduct and that we each have a different viewpoint from which to add to the collective whole. So what you are referring to is the type of insanity that has as part of its equilibrium socially automated activities such as that which in a bar room discussion we opinionate for the sake of nothing better to do. A sort of insanity in itself since there is little or no thinking required, just simple agreement to keep the conversation complimentary.

Hello:

I like Ben Franklin's definition that to be insane is to perform the same action over and over again and expect different results (for example dropping an object).

I do agree that many mental disorders are caused by society and that if said person was not in contact with others then they may get along great on their own.

Who is to say cancer is really a disease? Thats a rhetorical question. We know disease is bad because the body is not operating as it should, but it has changed in some way...likewise in mental illness...if it an onset condition that occurs then we know that they are different.

How about if someone has a defect in their heart...would you say that they are fine? That have something that does not operate as it should. How about high blood pressure or cholesterol? Is it ok to treat these with medications? In mental illness what if they can detect part of the brain that is not functioning normally? What if someone if anxious and medication actually helps them...and they like the change?

The more we learn about how the brain works the more we will find out how the PHYSICAL effects our mental states.

As for the tyranny of the majority...society...epically the US/western society we don't expect much of you...find a way to make money and live somewhere. don't creep out and scare those around you...or hurt them. Thats about it. You find your place and you live...if once cannot function within this structure...they could be seriously mentally ill.

What makes me sane? Lots of people agreeing with me. If enough people went crazy and started eating poo...then reality would become that normal people eat their own poo...if enough people did it then you are right...you would be crazy not to eat your own poo.

I hope this helps

Rev Phil

Some people choose to be different, but within the boundaries of society. We call them eccentric.

Others cannot help being different. They don't choose to be that way. Sometimes there is a medical condition that can be treated to help them get back to a functioning life. These are the ones we call mentally disturbed.

Then there are a few that are dangerous to themselves and society. They cannot be treated effectively and there is no choice but to remove them from society. These are the insane. They are judged to be insane by doctors and society itself.

If a person has an uncontrolled desire to throw himself out windows and in front of cars, should he not be protected from himself? If a person has an uncontrolled desire to kill others, should we not be protected from him?

When an individual is incapable of making rational decisions, it falls on the family and society to do it for him.

You could over define it as tyranny, but it's only society trying to define the difference between good and bad. Where do YOU draw the line. Murder=bad, cannabilism=bad, rape=bad and so on. Some people might define those as good, would you like to live in a world where nothing is defined as bad? We must define the line somewhere, it is what makes us civilized. The disagreement on what is defined as good or bad is the cause of every human conflict. It often seems that it is someone trying to force their belief system on others. The re-defining of that line occurs every day. We don't live in a black and white world. To give the power to define that line to any one person would be tyranny.

Just reflect a moment;And see that you just asked a question but didnt word it as one.
So is this an "insane" thing?

I dont think so,we or most of us have done similar things-me and i suppose others will continue to do so too.
As anyone can see,its a rather trivial thing(to do).
But what if a President did it? Then we must guess he did a "dreadful" thing.
No worry.
i disagree with what you are stating/asking.
Some people ARE insane;Some or most cannot even stop-it and would i guess dearly love to be sane,like the vast majority.
Its up-to-Us-all to help them,society and the individuals,involved;And to better "define" and even (yes) challenge the stigma and mocking of such afflicted people.And we can-as we are doing-carry on looking for cures and better treatments that will more effectively help those who are and have become insane.

When the Sheriff came to take away my roomate in a straight jacket, he said to them: "I'm a wizzard. You guys are wizzards too, but I can't go with you. {He knew they were there for him.} I'm waiting for the Master Wizzard and I can only go with him."

For the previous 3 days it was not about wizzards--it was about how he had been "inspired by a walnut." He was talking 1000 words a minute, spoke for hours without shutting up, walked in circles, could not sleep for days but then he would crash, and he spent all his last paycheck in one fell swoop. He threatened my life and the life of my dog, [which is why I called the Sheriff. They said he had to be violent before they could do anything.] Those are all classic symptoms of bi-polar mania.

2 days later when I brought him clean clothes in the hospital, he asked me how he got there. He remembered nothing.

Do not tell me he was "mentally different." He was insane.

'Insane' is pretty much only a legal term. It means you cannot tell the difference between right and wrong. This is important in the context of law and ethics, because most would agree that if you are really unable to determine what is right and what is wrong, you should not be held accountable for your actions - you have no way of telling. But you should likewise not be trusted to act freedly. You cannot be prosecuted but you should be detained.

Now, although there are some who argue that exactly what is 'right' and 'wrong' are subject to the whim of the majority, this is not really relevant to the issue of insanity. It doesn't matter WHAT the standards of society, ethics, or whatever actually are, nor if you agree with them. Only whether you are capable of figuring out what they are.

And like it or not, some people simply lack this capacity. Perhaps their reason is so distorted that they are incapable of making sense of their surroundings. Perhaps the region in their brain that is aware of social contexts or that censors their own activities never formed in the first place. These things do happen. Such people are not just 'free thinkers' - they are incapable of functioning normally with others EVEN IF THEY WANT TO. That is the difference.