Is sanity rational?

[bennyboy]

As I get older, I'm starting to reminisce more. One thing I reminisce about is a time I had a compulsory interview with a psychotherapist. She thought she was assessing me, but I really went philosophical on her. I suggested that everything she takes as an indicator of sanity is delusional. Our interview ended up with her having a philosophical crisis, and me getting a cool new doctor with crazy hair, a lazy eye, and an interest in talking about philosophy.

But anyway, what are the indicators of sanity? Here are a few off the top of my head.
-It's important to get out of bed in the morning, because things you do matter.
-You believe you see things essentially as they are, and act accordingly.
-You behave "morally," which means you accept that others are important, too, and that you will not interfere with their process of seeing things as they are and acting accordingly.


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.

What say you? Does being "crazy" really mean someone has lost their grip on reality, and does being "sane" really mean someone is interacting meaningfully with an objective reality?

[Surgenator]

But are these components of world view ACTUALLY rational?

That depends on your world view.

[Jenny A]

As far as I can tell sanity is measured based on how normal you are. Normal people are often irrational.

[Exian]

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?

[Alex K]

Logic is a tool to produce true statements from other true statements, and rationality is thus a means to determine how a set goal can be reached. It's not an intrinsic property of any action unless you specify the goal. Those are my two cents.

[Aoi Magi]

Sanity is a perception of a behavior which matches the norm of the society at that point in time. Rational behavior on the other hand, is the behavior which leads to the survival of our "replicating structure"(for a lack of better term). The closer that structure is to our own while having greater potential adaptability than our own, the greater is our priority to ensure it's survival. That is why self-sacrifice to protect our children, country or species is rational, whereas suicide is irrational.

[Exian]

So, self-preservation would be the goal and anything that helps to reach or maintain self-preservation is rational.

Maybe the question should have been posed like this: Is sanity reasonable? or, Do we judge sanity through reason or evolution?

---

Sanity is a perception of a behavior which matches the norm of the society at that point in time.

I'm gonna get silly here for a minute. Taking an insane person from society and placing him on an island alone is the same as curing his mental illness with professional help.

[genkaus]

I suggested that everything she takes as an indicator of sanity is delusional. Our interview ended up with her having a philosophical crisis, and me getting a cool new doctor with crazy hair, a lazy eye, and an interest in talking about philosophy.

Its fun to mess with people like that, isn't it?

But anyway, what are the indicators of sanity? Here are a few off the top of my head.
-It's important to get out of bed in the morning, because things you do matter.
-You believe you see things essentially as they are, and act accordingly.
-You behave "morally," which means you accept that others are important, too, and that you will not interfere with their process of seeing things as they are and acting accordingly.

Where did you get these indicators? Because I don't think they are accurate.
- People suffering from depression may not believe that what they do matters. Others, such as those too old or handicapped, may rightly believe that they are not accomplishing anything significant. But these people are not necessarily insane.
- Believing that you see things as they are and actually seeing them as they are are two different things. An insane person may whole-heartedly believe that the statue is talking to him. On the other hand, having a few beliefs that don't match reality - like god talks to you - is not sufficient to declare someone insane (if only it was).
- If behaving "immorally" was a criteria for insanity then every criminal would get off on an insanity plea. Immoral people are not necessarily insane and insane people are not necessarily immoral.

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.

What say you? Does being "crazy" really mean someone has lost their grip on reality, and does being "sane" really mean someone is interacting meaningfully with an objective reality?

While I don't agree with your indicators of sanity, I do believe that there are indicators which are rational, founded on observation and based on a sensible process of drawing inferences. Towards that end, I agree with Alfred Korzybski and his map-territory analogy.

One of the functions of human mind is to draw a mental representation of reality around it the same way map represents a particular territory. A map isn't necessarily accurate in its representation but the more accurate it is, the more useful and reliable it'll be. The purpose behind drawing an accurate representation of reality is to facilitate survivability - therefore, the more accurate mental representation means better survivability.

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. Anything below that is detrimental to one's life and therefore a sign of an unhealthy or unsound mind.

[Michael B]

I take a pragmatic view on this: that sanity is the ability to function reasonably in the world.

So people who looked at the sun and stars and thought they orbited the Earth were sane, yet they weren't really seeing things as they are. Indeed they were wildly inaccurate (and who knows how many of our beliefs about reality today are in error).

[Michael B]

therefore, the more accurate mental representation means better survivability.

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 or dreaming?