I don't think "insanity" is a psychiatric diagnosis.

If the patient knows they have a psychiatric condition where states of control and self-awareness cycle on and off, then the patient may well have a reasonable grasp of their own problem.

I agree its less likely for someone with chronic psychosis to be aware of how crazy they are.

If it's being implied that a person claiming [his own] insanity is sane are we to infer that a person claiming [his own] sanity is actually insane? :chin:

Suppose a patient attends a psychiatry assessment and says "Doc I'm insane." The doctor asks why they believe such a thing. They continue to explain quite reasonably several reasons why they are insane. The doctor agrees that these signs and behaviours indicate insanity. Except now (s)he is face with a clinical dilemma.
If he agrees with the patients beliefs about the concept of insanity is the patient insane? Surely only a sane person could describe insanity and I couldn't imagine a truly insane person ever admitting they arent perfectly fine. — Benj96

Surely you've read Catch-22. If you're crazy, you can get out of flying more bombing missions. But if you don't want to fly any more bombing missions that shows you're sane!

Surely you've read Catch-22. If you're crazy, you can get out of flying more bombing missions. But if you don't want to fly any more bombing missions that shows you're sane! — fishfry

:up: My first thought too.

If it's being implied that a person claiming [his own] insanity is sane are we to infer that a person claiming [his own] sanity is actually insane? :chin: — TheMadFool

Well, within reason, yeah. I would simply ask you to qualify "what is the normal mind, the normal mental state?"

I think anyone who claims they are completely sane, that is to say that they hold no delusions whatsoever, merely show a resistance to accepting the fact that they dont know fundamentally very much about anything, about the what and how the mind is and more importantly how it ought to be. Very few probably do. In essence its ignorant to plead wisdom. So that kind of blind arrogance as to assume you are the status quo, the state of true normality....is pretty ludicrous.

I think its wise to always maintain a regard for yourself as potentially hazardous, as capable of immoral conduct, of behaviour one would consider erratic, illogical, insane. Sanity is relative and it's also a very broad spectrum. I would trust one who is unsure of their mind but cautious over one who is absolutely positive their beliefs assumptions and behaviour are the correct and ideal ones.

Having mental health problems doesn’t entail that everything you say is false. It is quite easy for someone to have functional enough cognitive faculties to correctly assess and report that there are some other dysfunctions in their cognitive faculties.

As @Nils Loc noted, "insanity" isn't a psychiatric diagnosis. It's a very outdated term.

Whether people are diagnosed with major mental illnesses or have more or less normal mental status, some people are 'trapped inside their own heads'. They have not noted the degree to which their behavior is problematic to themselves or others.

Well, within reason, yeah. I would simply ask you to qualify "what is the normal mind, the normal mental state?" — Benj96

It seems that sanity/insanity or normal is defined in terms of 1)how much in touch with reality you are and 2) whether you belong to a group or not.

Last I read, losing touch with reality, perhaps understood in terms of how misaligned one's thoughts are to indubitable facts of our world, is a cardinal symptom of madness. For instance, denying that fire can hurt you or that you're the present queen of Sheba count as evidence that you've lost your mind. An important feature of such false beliefs about yourself and the world outside is that they're immune to disproof - even if someone were to demonstrate the impossibility of the truth of such beliefs, the insane person will refuse to give them up.

The other aspect of sanity/normalcy I mentioned is about when a person holds views that, in a rational sense, indicate a loss of touch with reality but such views are held by a group the person belongs to. Believing in evil spirits is a case in point. To the civilized world evil spirits don't exist and believing that they do amounts to losing touch with reality and thus is a sign of insanity. However, if you belong to an isolated tribal community somewhere in the Amazon jungle, believing in evil spirits is not a sign of insanity for it's part of the tribe's shared worldview - believing a falsehood told to you isn't your fault is it?

As must be clear to you by now, sanity is about building a belief system around what we call facts (truths of our world) using our rational faculties and sometimes it just means being part of a group. Doesn't this definition of a sane person bear an uncanny resemblance to the critical thinker of philosophy?

I think anyone who claims they are completely sane, that is to say that they hold no delusions whatsoever, merely show a resistance to accepting the fact that they dont know fundamentally very much about anything, about the what and how the mind is and more importantly how it ought to be. Very few probably do. In essence its ignorant to plead wisdom. So that kind of blind arrogance as to assume you are the status quo, the state of true normality....is pretty ludicrous — Benj96

This raises the question of what should we make of a person who claims that he's sane? Not all those who say they're sane are sane for the reason that all insane people think they're sane. The definition of sanity/insanity I provided should be sufficient to sort out the matter in my opinion.

I think its wise to always maintain a regard for yourself as potentially hazardous, as capable of immoral conduct, of behaviour one would consider erratic, illogical, insane. Sanity is relative and it's also a very broad spectrum. I would trust one who is unsure of their mind but cautious over one who is absolutely positive their beliefs assumptions and behaviour are the correct and ideal ones. — Benj96

This leads us to the doorsteps of the philosopher, the critical thinker. A true philospher or a true critical thinker is one who is always on guard, in a high state of alertness,
and on the lookout for anything that might mislead him into the world of delusions, the world of the insane, and while the existence of external threats in the form of sophistry, vested interests, rhetoric sans logic, etc. can't be denied, the most dangerous threat they face is from within - cognitive biases. Cognitive biases have the power to effect self-delusion, and the unwary maybe in danger of becoming insane.

amounts to losing touch with reality — TheMadFool

And what such reality is that to which they are losing touch? Define "reality" in an impartial objective way removing all personal opinion. As far as I know in a strictly philosophical sense something real (a person) can never lose touch with reality or they wouldn't exist. They are perceiving the same reality as everyone else just in a dramatically different way.

Now if you said losing touch with "societal functionality" then I would be more inclined to agree. Insane people have a sense of reality it's just incomprehensible to the large majority of society and perhaps repeatedly changes. Is it harmful? Maybe so, but I would imagine not always.

building a belief system around what we call facts (truths of our world) — TheMadFool

How can one build a belief system around facts? Unless they are resisting the acceptance of fact and would rather believe things around them instead. Furthermore I have an issue with the differentiation between "fact" and "belief" anyway.
Both are subject to change/revision over time. Many things considered fact in the realm of science and medicine have been completely disregarded for better "facts" which we have no idea in the future may be overruled for even better "facts". This being a paradigm shift/copernican revolution.

It is a fact that the world runs using money. It is a belief that upholds the value of money. See how belief and fact can overlap and directly influence the existence if one another? I really think their are just concepts. And some concepts are highly useful and widely shared- facts. And some are more individual and less applicable - beliefs. But qualitatively theres little in the difference between them.

"Proof" as with regard to belief and fact is a time dependent thing. It is also a definition dependent thing. Change the definition of what you are trying to prove sure enough the proof will always fail at some degree or scale. Similarly try to prove the same fact over millions of years and unless it's extremely general it's likely to fail.

So, if we are talking about insanity, we arent talking about reality or delusion - because no one has authority of their descriptions, nor fact or belief, but rather whether "their reality" is tolerable by "my reality" and "others realities". It comes down to fear of the unknown or the poorly understood. Fear of chaotic behaviour and a lack of predictability. In essence societal fear that they cannot "control" the insane within the relative degrees of freedom permitted to people which must function together.

Can this person function socially? No. Can I or anyone understand them? No. Therefore they must be deluded, psychotic, insane or otherwise mentally deranged.

just in a dramatically different way — Benj96

That makes the difference.

Now if you said losing touch with "societal functionality" then I would be more inclined to agree. — Benj96

Are hermits insane?

How can one build a belief system around facts? — Benj96

Believe facts, avoid things that contradict facts.

Both are subject to change/revision over time — Benj96

Being sane doesn't imply your beliefs have to be fixed. In fact sensible people always make it a point to update their beliefs in light of new evidence.

See how belief and fact can overlap and directly influence the existence if one another? — Benj96

Yes, but the usual recommendation is to put facts before all else.

So, if we are talking about insanity, we arent talking about reality or delusion - because no one has authority of their descriptions, nor fact or belief, but rather whether "their reality" is tolerable by "my reality" and "others realities". It comes down to fear of the unknown or the poorly understood. Fear of chaotic behaviour and a lack of predictability. In essence societal fear that they cannot "control" the insane within the relative degrees of freedom permitted to people which must function together. — Benj96

You lost me there. I'm working with the standard definition of insanity which includes delusional thought and losing touch with reality.

Can this person function socially? — Benj96

Well, if you think it's just an issue of "just in a dramatically different way" this question doesn't make sense does it? Why should functioning in society matter if insanity is just a "dramatically different way" of experiencing reality?

Are hermits insane? — TheMadFool

Do hermits not have a functional niche in societies? They can live a harmonious life that is not disruptive to other social members. Their solitude does not separate them from collective society. I also

Yes, but the usual recommendation is to put facts before all else. — TheMadFool

see no problem or insanity there.

Believe facts, avoid things that contradict facts. — TheMadFool

Facts contradict facts. It was a fact that we lived without artificial lighting. Now its fact that we do. Facts like beliefs are subject to change and redundancy.

Being sane doesn't imply your beliefs have to be fixed. In fact sensible people always make it a point to update their beliefs in light of new evidence. — TheMadFool

I didnt imply that. The point of determining that both facts and beliefs can completely 180 over time is to highlight that "delusion" can never be fully determined just as no one can describe perfectly the "reality" as to which "delusion from" refers to. Otherwise I'd imagine they would be incredibly famous. Some people are considered insane for extreme and new ideas or predictions only to later be proven correct. At what point do we decide to permit them a "sane" and accepted perception of reality. To me there is no "Delusion" but simply an "alternate experience of reality" - and perhaps that approach would omit stigma surrounding insanity and open minds to to more compassion, patience and tenacity in understanding a human being.

Yes, but the usual recommendation is to put facts before all else. — TheMadFool

.

What kind of facts? Scientific? Financial? Political? Social? Technological? Facts are not necessarily conducive to ethical imperatives. Which I'd imagine in a case of dealing with suspected cases of psychosis or "insanity" etc is fundamental.

You lost me there. I'm working with the standard definition of insanity which includes delusional thought and losing touch with reality. — TheMadFool

Exactly. It defined with reference to "delusion" and "reality". What are those? Can you define them for all 8 billion of us please? You cannot avoid personal or culturally bias in the determination of "insanity".

Well, if you think it's just an issue of "just in a dramatically different way" this question doesn't make sense does it? Why should functioning in society matter if insanity is just a "dramatically different way" of experiencing reality? — TheMadFool

It shouldn't. That's my point. "Insanity" shouldn't be associated with societal dysfunction. That leaves the door open to misdiagnosis of people experiencing just a temporary crisis or change in behaviour, those which reject societal expectations and make it known, or anyone who is protesting, revolting, boycotting or making any social disruptions, and those who choose their personal "beliefs" over "facts" such as the religious, the spiritual, mystics, mediums and all the other alternative and unusual lifestyles.

Their solitude does not separate them from collective society — Benj96

This is a contradiction. Hermits specifically aim to get away from society and all the baggage that comes with being in one. Yes, hermits may maintain some level of contact with people but that's only to stock up on basic necessities that the wilderness may fail to provide.

see no problem or insanity there. — Benj96

The point of determining that both facts and beliefs can completely 180 over time is to highlight that "delusion" can never be fully determined just as no one can describe perfectly the "reality" as to which "delusion from" refers to. Otherwise I'd imagine they would be incredibly famous. — Benj96

Reminds me of Christopher Hitchens who in his wisdom remarked, "don't make the best [the perfect] the enemy of the good". Of course it's true that people know next to nothing about "true" reality but we have a reasonable handle on some basic stuff about our reality. Let's go with what we know for the moment instead of with what we can know.

To me there is no "Delusion" but simply an "alternate experience of reality" - and perhaps that approach would omit stigma surrounding insanity and open minds to to more compassion, patience and tenacity in understanding a human being. — Benj96

That's a very commendable way of looking at insanity which has a fair share of stigma attached to it. I second that and perhaps at some point in the future we'll find out that the the people whom we've been labeling as insane were onto something.

I remember telling some one that 2000 years ago, a person who said anything to the effect that people will fly one day would've been immediately bundled off to the nearest asylum. The same maybe true of so-called insane people of the modern world.

Exactly. It defined with reference to "delusion" and "reality". What are those? Can you define them for all 8 billion of us please? You cannot avoid personal or culturally bias in the determination of "insanity". — Benj96

I turned this over in my mind and while I initially thought the whole thing is circular, I came to the realization that the meaning of sanity has to be and, not surprisingly, is grounded in rationality/critical thinking. It maybe true that insanity may mean different things to different people and I did mention this in one of my posts but these differences are only at the level of content e.g. Buddhism has no concept of a creator deity but christianity has and so on but the common thread that unites all cultures and peoples is the method - reason/rationality. In short, as I mentioned before, sanity is about being rational, how one thinks, rather than about what beliefs one holds, what one thinks.

It shouldn't. That's my point. "Insanity" shouldn't be associated with societal dysfunction. That leaves the door open to misdiagnosis of people experiencing just a temporary crisis or change in behaviour, those which reject societal expectations and make it known, or anyone who is protesting, revolting, boycotting or making any social disruptions, and those who choose their personal "beliefs" over "facts" such as the religious, the spiritual, mystics, mediums and all the other alternative and unusual lifestyles. — Benj96

Well, if memory serves, psychiatrists make it a point to look for signs of social dysfunction in their clients. I maybe wrong here but the reason for doing that isn't because social dysfunction is a symptom of insanity but because it's a marker of how severe the problem, whatever it is, is.

In short, as I mentioned before, sanity is about being rational, how one thinks, rather than about what beliefs one holds, what one thinks. — TheMadFool

Correct, but a consequence of that is that everyone is at least slightly “insane”, as we are all imperfectly rational, subject to cognitive biases, etc.

Correct, but a consequence of that is that everyone is at least slightly “insane”, as we are all imperfectly rational, subject to cognitive biases, etc. — Pfhorrest

:up:

If he agrees with the patients beliefs about the concept of insanity is the patient insane? — Benj96

The doctor should say: Congratulations, you are on the first rung of the ladder to sanity.

The doctor should say: Congratulations, you are on the first rung of the ladder to sanity — A Seagull

Hehe

If you do a thought experiment about thinking, is it a real experiment?

4.9k

If you do a thought experiment about thinking, is it a real experiment? — unenlightened

Only if you take notes, make measurements and write it all up afterwards.

From Wikipedia:

In The Sane Society, published in 1955, psychologist Erich Fromm proposed that not just individuals, but entire societies "may be lacking in sanity." Fromm argued that one of the most deceptive features of social life involves "consensual validation":[6]

It is naively assumed that the fact that the majority of people share certain ideas or feelings proves the validity of these ideas and feelings. Nothing is further from the truth... Just as there is a folie à deux there is a folie à millions. The fact that millions of people share the same vices does not make these vices virtues, the fact that they share so many errors does not make the errors to be truths, and the fact that millions of people share the same form of mental pathology does not make these people sane.[7]