So I was musing about this in my journal and I figured that you guys could help me out here.
The definition of insanity: the condition of being insane; a derangement of the mind.
The definition of derangement: disturbance of regular order.
Well, in a way, aren't we all constantly disturbing the 'regular' order of the world and of ourselves? Is our concept of insane, which usually has to do with acting out of the 'normal' or involving people with mental in-capabilities, flawed?
Usually, when someone is discribed with mental disability, they have the potential to either through action or inaction, harm themselves. Under that logic, with other symptoms, insanity could be objectivly evaluated.
For instance, some could discribe eccentric individuals as "insane" because they always live outside certain societal norms. However, they are almost never threats to themselves or others, so, in their case, they are not "insane".
Words rarely have adequate definitions. Coming up with definitions is very hard work, and it' not always clear that it's worth the effort to try to find one. Investigating individual cases of insanity would I'm sure convince you of the use of the notion more than reflecting on its abstract definition.
Your initial idea is very good. Scientifically, the "regular order of the world" would be – according to the physical (natural) law of entropy – a homogenic mass of infinite number of equal, lowest-quality material/energetic (or something even submaterial/subenergetic) particles. On the contrary, the traditional concept of order is perfect qualitative structuring, or rather, a hierarchy of everything according to purity, originality and potential, which we experience through our mind (that gives reason to the experience).
In this fashion, egalitarianism and naturalistic "freedom revolutionism" is basically insane, because – by liberating and qualitatively equalizing the elements – it decomposes the higher structure, which cannot exercise its higher aspect of quality (e.g. as a living being dies of the cancer of a tissue from the subversion of the system).
Thank you. Although my focus wasn't primarily on the scientific order of the universe, you also bring up a very good point. Even the societal definition ties in with the traditional and scientific views.
Insanity is disturbing the 'regular' order of the world in a way that goes further than what the masses can tolerate, usually because it is harmful to the individual or others or simply due to a cultural bias that is subject to change.
I don't like that definition of insanity. Insanity would be due to some mental infirmity (natural or disease) which deprives the person of the capacity to understand or control their actions. It's rather specific, because in any case where the term 'insanity' has any relevance (courts, care facilities), the above definition is what's used.
Mental illness is not insanity, in the same way that chronic pain in your knee does not make you fully physically disabled.
I agree, I'm sorry if you misinterpreted my explanation. I was saying that I thought that everyone is a bit insane, but it seems the society perceives insane differently than psychologists.
My favorite definition of insanity is to "repeat the same actin over, and over,and over, to get the same result every time". Einstein? What never made sense to me was that in itself is a great definition however for one to define sanity, or it's opposite, one must prove they themselves are sane. By the above definition, breathing is insane.
The definition of insanity: the condition of being insane; a derangement of the mind.
The definition of derangement: disturbance of regular order.
Well, in a way, aren't we all constantly disturbing the 'regular' order of the world and of ourselves? Is our concept of insane, which usually has to do with acting out of the 'normal' or involving people with mental in-capabilities, flawed?