Is sanity rational?

[bennyboy]

I agree with you. Sanity would be thoughts and actions made towards self-preservation, including doing good for the community. Evolution does a good job of explaing that. It may also explain insanity. I do think self-preservation is rational, but I don't think we came by it rationally.

What would you say about extreme cases of self-sacrifice, like fighting in wars or saving your children or parents from a bullet? Do we come by that rationally, or is that also evolutionary?

In my opinion, altruism is more sane than self-preservation, even though it is probably also an evolved emotional mechanism. It shows that despite one's evolved feelings of self-importance, one is aware on some level that one really ain't all that.

Given the vastness of the universe, and the number of people alive, I think it's highly delusional to protect one's self, especially at a risk or deliberate harm to others; this behavior indicates a belief, at least at the level of instinct, that one is a special snowflake. I don't think any individual's life memories, knowledge or world view is likely to be so unique and important that it's worth saving. And even if you happen to be an Einstein, it's hard to argue that in a universe with trillions of stars, even the welfare of the entire human species (or life on Earth) is likely to matter much.

[genkaus]

Except maybe not. For example, we may have an exaggerated fear response when faced with uncertainty (e.g. in the dark). To perceive a greater probability of a wild beastie being present behind a tree than actually exists in reality may enhance survival. The statistician David Spiegelhalter has all sorts of interesting anecdotes on how poor we are at perceiving likelihood of events. And this is something Alvin Plantinga has thought and written about: that evolution need not necessarily drive accurate perception of the world around us; there may be indeed be evolutionary advantages to a distorted sense of reality. And it goes back to that ancient philosophical problem: how can I be sure that I'm not hallucinating?

That is why my argument came with a caveat : "That is the criteria for a sound and healthy mind - one that is capable of drawing a representation of reality with a certain basic degree of accuracy."

Imagining a beastie behind a tree occasionally is not a significant distortion in the mental representation - so, its within acceptable bounds. However, if you start imagining beasties behind every tree, that is a significant distortion which would diminish survivability.

Contrary to what Platinga says, distortions in the perception of reality can be advantageous only if they are to a minor degree. Any major distortions won't be advantageous. Which is why evolution would drive you to build a mostly accurate perception even if there are a few advantageous distortions thrown in. Thus the answer to the ancient philosophical question : check if what you see fits with the rest of what you know about reality.

---

In my opinion, altruism is more sane than self-preservation, even though it is probably also an evolved emotional mechanism. It shows that despite one's evolved feelings of self-importance, one is aware on some level that one really ain't all that.

Given the vastness of the universe, and the number of people alive, I think it's highly delusional to protect one's self, especially at a risk or deliberate harm to others; this behavior indicates a belief, at least at the level of instinct, that one is a special snowflake. I don't think any individual's life memories, knowledge or world view is likely to be so unique and important that it's worth saving. And even if you happen to be an Einstein, it's hard to argue that in a universe with trillions of stars, even the welfare of the entire human species (or life on Earth) is likely to matter much.

The key question you are ignoring here is "matter to whom?". The arguments you make for the ultimate irrelevancy of individual life are irrelevant - one's life and actions are relevant to oneself.

[mralstoner]

But are these components of world view ACTUALLY rational? Are they founded on observation or a sensible process of drawing inferences? I don't think so. I think they are expressions of feelings ingrained in our species through the process of evolution.

There are two main variables in the brain (1) beliefs/knowledge and (2) values/feelings. Values/feelings define our end goals, and beliefs tell us (hopefully) efficient ways of achieving those goals.

So, the question "what is rational?" will be answered differently depending on which of these two functions you're talking about.

When talking about "rational" in the domain of beliefs, we are asking: is this belief reliable?

It doesn't make sense to talk about "rational" in the domain of values, because feelings (as end-goals) are not truth-apt, they are a force of motivation. (Although, you could argue that certain desires are irrational if they are sabotaging your overall happiness, and hence ought to be curbed).

So, what is "sane" in all this? We might say that unreliable beliefs are insane. And we might call someone insane if they don't recognise the authority of feelings as their motivation, or if their feelings are so outside the norm that we label them "el weirdo".

But rationality mainly applies to only one function of the brain, not both.

[Exian]

In my opinion, altruism is more sane than self-preservation, even though it is probably also an evolved emotional mechanism. It shows that despite one's evolved feelings of self-importance, one is aware on some level that one really ain't all that.

Self-importance is different that self-preservation. Being that we are social creatures, altruism falls under self-preservation, or self-preservation falls under altruism, it depends on how you look at it, I guess.

[psychoslice]

I'm like you, I give my psychiatrist a hard time, I analyse them and they don't like it, its ok when their doing it to me, well so they think. Sanity, normal, what the hell does that really mean, I feel that the so called sanity are the neurotic's of the world, where as the eccentrics are the ones who truly live in the world, after all who really wants to be like a sheep and follow everyone else, as they say, "if you follow the heard, you end up standing in bullshit".

[Mudhammam]

It would seem like an appropriate time for Insanity to make his way back to the forums and give us his perspective on the OP.

As for mine, sanity is measured by the degree of congruity and internal consistency that exists between a thought, statement, or behavior and the object it claims to represent or the goal it seeks to attain. As for congruity to an object, we have successful and proven methods for determining as much; as for congruity to a goal, present consensus within society is the ultimate judge.

[*Deidre*]

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.

[genkaus]

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,

[Exian]

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,

Go on...

[bennyboy]

It would seem like an appropriate time for Insanity to make his way back to the forums and give us his perspective on the OP.

As for mine, sanity is measured by the degree of congruity and internal consistency that exists between a thought, statement, or behavior and the object it claims to represent or the goal it seeks to attain. As for congruity to an object, we have successful and proven methods for determining as much; as for congruity to a goal, present consensus within society is the ultimate judge.

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?