(October 3, 2014 at 7:31 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Okay, so what's the congruity between "I am extremely important, and must be protected, respected and valued" and "The universe consists of trillions of stars and billions of galaxies. One of the stars has a little watery rock orbiting it, and on this rock are trillions of living things, of which I am one."

Is feeling that one is important sane?

In the following contexts, "I am extremely important to myself, or to my loved ones, etc.," yes, that is sane, rational, and healthy. "I am extremely important because..." "...I am one of five hundred people whom the species depends on for its survival," or "I am making an indispensable contribution to my fellow beings whose lives largely depend on my existence," again, yes.

However, "I am extremely important on the basis of an absolute, universal principle that applies to, first and foremost, myself, and even at the expense of the other trillions of living things," no, that is not sane, rational, or healthy.

Being sane means you can function without killing other people.

(October 3, 2014 at 6:02 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(October 3, 2014 at 3:18 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: I tend to view someone's level of sanity as to how he/she defines reality and how altruistic he/she may be. Usually "criminally insane" people for example have no regard for others' well being nor have a clear picture of objective reality.

Regard for someone else's well-being is not a criteria for sanity,

why?

(October 3, 2014 at 8:04 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: In the following contexts, "I am extremely important to myself, or to my loved ones, etc.," yes, that is sane, rational, and healthy. "I am extremely important because..." "...I am one of five hundred people whom the species depends on for its survival," or "I am making an indispensable contribution to my fellow beings whose lives largely depend on my existence," again, yes.

Certainly it's sane. But is it rational? Can arbitrary value judgments ever really be rational?

---

(October 3, 2014 at 8:48 pm)KUSA Wrote: Being sane means you can function without killing other people.

How about suicide? Is it / can it be sane?

(October 4, 2014 at 1:57 am)bennyboy Wrote: How about suicide? Is it / can it be sane?

Depends on the motive. If you are in bad health and shits never going to get better then it might be logical to opt out.

(October 4, 2014 at 2:03 am)KUSA Wrote:

(October 4, 2014 at 1:57 am)bennyboy Wrote: How about suicide? Is it / can it be sane?

Depends on the motive. If you are in bad health and shits never going to get better then it might be logical to opt out.

What if you decide humans pollute the earth too much, and you don't want to be involved?

What if you're perfectly fine, but you are curious about what it's like to die?

(October 4, 2014 at 1:57 am)bennyboy Wrote: Certainly it's sane. But is it rational? Can arbitrary value judgments ever really be rational?

Yeah, I would say so. I think the rationale of a value judgment is how we often determine its worth, either to ourselves or how (in our view) it ought to be evaluated by others. I know you're no fan of pragmatism but here I think its method proves both invaluable and inevitable: Tacitly implied in questions of value is that the object of our discourse makes a practical difference to conscious experience (actually or hypothetically). This idea--that anything matters at all--may be to some degree arbitrary and not really subject to distinction of rational and irrational, but then as I already suggested, can't the same be applied to virtually everything? (Such as if I were to simply plug my ears and stick out my tongue, brandishing solipsism against anyone who ever tried to persuade me of anything counter-intuitive to my wishes or desires?)

I think if you're looking for an absolute principle to draw from, in order to persuade another, Ben, then no, you probably will not find that. However, that applies to both logic and morality as far as I can tell. There are certain rules and axioms that human beings cannot reduce any further without entering the absurd and self-refuting (or self-annihilating); it is from basic, internally consistent principles that all concepts and percepts are derived (in morality, it would be the Golden Rule or its inverse).

(October 3, 2014 at 8:04 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: However, "I am extremely important on the basis of an absolute, universal principle that applies to, first and foremost, myself, and even at the expense of the other trillions of living things," no, that is not sane, rational, or healthy.

That seems a reasonable conclusion for you to reach.
But then you aren't and will never be one of the chosen.

(October 3, 2014 at 6:04 pm)Exian Wrote:

(October 3, 2014 at 6:02 pm)genkaus Wrote: Regard for someone else's well-being is not a criteria for sanity,

Go on...

That was supposed to be a period, but OK. The basic principle behind sanity is determining the normal functioning of brain. If your brain function within a set of parameters and at a basic level, then you are judged sane. That function doesn't need to be perfect - which is why a few deviations from understanding of reality - like religion - are acceptable.

"Altruism" isn't a necessary characteristic of normal function. While being altruistic doesn't normally deviate much from normal function, not being altruistic doesn't detract from it either. Therefore, it is a non-issue where sanity is concerned.

---

(October 3, 2014 at 7:31 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Okay, so what's the congruity between "I am extremely important, and must be protected, respected and valued" and "The universe consists of trillions of stars and billions of galaxies. One of the stars has a little watery rock orbiting it, and on this rock are trillions of living things, of which I am one."

Is feeling that one is important sane?

The concept of importance is both relative and relational - that is, it encompasses both "compared to what" and "to whom". So, the feeling of self-importance could be described as "I am extremely important (to myself, my family or my community as compared to others) and must be protected, respected and valued". And the importance here is not diminished by "The universe consists of trillions of stars and billions of galaxies. One of the stars has a little watery rock orbiting it, and on this rock are trillions of living things, of which I am one."

---

(October 3, 2014 at 11:47 pm)Deidre32 Wrote:

(October 3, 2014 at 6:02 pm)genkaus Wrote: Regard for someone else's well-being is not a criteria for sanity,

why?

Because the absence of such a regard doesn't detract from normal functioning of the brain.

---

(October 4, 2014 at 1:57 am)bennyboy Wrote: Certainly it's sane. But is it rational? Can arbitrary value judgments ever really be rational?

If those "arbitrary value judgments" become a matter of fact, then yes, it is rational.

For example, suppose you consider the desire to live to be arbitrary (whether or not it is arbitrary, we'll leave for later). Given its near-universal status, it becomes a matter of fact that most people want to live. Now, if I have a vaccine-formula to eliminate most diseases known only to me, then that would make me extremely important.