================================================ Subject: Re: NCR: philosophical talk is back From: "creed -7m3 - live" To: Date: Fri 31 Aug 2001 22:57:27 -0400 ================================================ You are right Dawn about reading too much into a philosophical question. I don't think that there are any limits for analyzing a question. Especially if it uses two factors that could well mean different things to different people. Withe Tara's added comments in earlier posts and reading your perspectives. I am kind of confused to what insanity and genius means. If we rephrased the question. Which words would be more appropriate? If a person that is highly intelligent and exceeds in creative thinking. Do you think that they would end up being led to a nervous breakdown, trying to prove thier thoughts or solve things that are abstract and of uncommon thoughts. I'd say yes.. since it is a tough thing to feel that you are on the right track. But your ideas are highly contested. Either by religious ideals of the era. Or "hard-nosed" and highly accepted theories. Especially those based upon previous superstitions. To prevent a highly creative thinker from "burnout". I guess the outlets for "venting" thier very active imaginations is needed. Also, some rationalitation to "chill out". If there theories are bound by a dead end series of "why" questions. They need to walk away and maybe the answer might come by way of accident. By some totally unrelated event. My job requires a lot of imagination and sometimes a lot of trial and error. Though not a "genius" type of job. It is necessary to walk away. Ease up on concentration and come back to tackle the problem. I imagine that some geniuses are under pressure from either educational institutes or employers. Though, I heard of employers that allowed thier geniuses to dress as they felt comfortable and imagine at thier own pace. Other geniuses are just out there creating and staying as hermits. Back to my comment about the world being flat. According to people in that time frame. They were either called herectics or "bonkers" (I don't think that the slang "bonkers" existed then.) Also, granted that legally insane is based upon certain criteria. Such as incompetency and total unawareness that thier actions have certain impact upon other factors in life. In regards to the person that killed and ate a person. Claiming nutritional value as thier reason. It would definately be atrocious in my eyes. But as to insanity. It would be based upon the true underlying motives that the canibal had. I believe that canibalism leads to a disease in humans. Similar to mad cow disease. As to why. I really don't know. It might be that there is a God and he doesn't want cows to eat flesh or people to eat people. But mad cow disease and its canibal cousin both lead to madness. But is madness the same thing as insanity? Reflecting on Tara's comment about the person killing thier spouse and claiming that they were killing the antichrist. I don't know if that was a result of "theocratic pollution","bad drugs" or "enlightenment from the angels". I guess the person would have to analyzed and questioned in detail about thier reasonings for thier actions. I'd classify the person as insane. But would he legally be insane? The favorite cartoon that I have seen, regarding religious extremism was a person, all by thierself. Carrying a sign that said "The End is Near". He had the word near crossed out and wrote here in the place of near. (He was the only one left.) Later, Jim On Fri, 2001-08-31 at 10:10, Dawn DelliSanti wrote: > In a message dated 8/31/01 5:50:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > tknapp@TUCKER-USA.COM writes: > > > > I think you're reading too much into the question, Dawn... the general ideas > > of "insane" and "genius" are something that most people get the basic gist > > of. > > I don't believe I have read too much into it. This is supposed to be a > philosophical question, can one really read too much into that? My question > is this, just because most people have a basic "gist" of the ideas, does that > make their ideas correct? > > > Imo, insane would mean someone who's thoughts are so different from the norm > > that the majority of the population can't conceive of the reasoning behind > > them, i.e. "I killed my wife because she's a demon from the underworld sent > > to destroy mankind". If the person truly believes that, then most people > > would agree that he's insane. > > I don't think "mentally ill" or "depressed" > > > are appropriate for the question, since someone could be mentally ill or > > depressed without most people even realizing it, while insanity would be > > more obvious. (Again, in my opinion). > I was not trying to define insanity with mental illness or depression, I > just thought that that those would be better words to use in place of > insanity. I am not sure if I believe that one who is insane appears to be > more obvious. I believe it really depends on the situation at hand. > > A person could have clinical > > > depression or be obsessive-compulsive without their behavior being so far > > from the norm as to be considered insane. > I think I answered this above. > > > > A genius is someone who's thought processes are highly advanced compared to > > the majority. (It kind of all goes back to "what is 'normal'?"). On a > > standardized IQ test, normal intelligence is considered a score within 20 > > points of 100. A genius is 160 and above. (A flawed IQ test wouldn't > > count, since the odds are good that it wouldn't be a standardized test - > > same as taking the SAT's. Controlled setting, moderated, the test being > > approved prior to the time of taking it by a board of people who know what > > they're doing, etc...) > Do you really think that a standardized test isn't flawed? > To get away from IQ tests, I think a genius would > > > just be someone who can "think" better than a lot of people. (If that makes > > sense... which it probably doesn't... at least I can prove that I'm not a > > genius, huh? ) > Think better on a whole? Think better in what areas? > > > > To get back to Ewa's question - my opinion is that while it's possible to be > > both a genius and insane, genius doesn't necessarily have to lead to > > insanity. > Just as ignorance doesn't have to lead to bliss. There are plenty of > people who are considered to be of "average" or below average intelligence > that go insane, just as there are plenty of people who have an above average > intelligence level who are not viewed as insane. > > The way I see it, there are a few possible reasons for why it's > > > sometimes seen that way. First, it could just be that the person's thinking > > is so highly advanced, that other people can't even come close to > > understanding it, and believe the person to be insane because of that. > > Second, the genius could "burn out"... try so hard for so long to figure > > something out that the frustration mounts to the point where they give up... > > perhaps having a nervous breakdown? > Does a nervous breakdown make them insane? Weren't you the one who said that > one can be depressed or mentally ill and not be insane? > > > > I know of a couple of people who have genius level IQs, and both have had > > difficulty in their lives trying to deal with it. I wouldn't go so far as > > to say that either of them are anywhere near insane, but both of them have > > exhibited what most people would call "deviant behavior". > > I guess what I'm trying to get at is that it's so difficult to be highly > > intelligent, that if those people can't find a way to release their > > thoughts, it's likely to be very frustrating to them. > > Ah hell, it's late and I can't get across what I'm trying to say. (Talk > > about frustrating...). Hopefully you get the basic idea though. > > Tara > > > > > > -- It is when I struggle to be brief that I become obscure. -- Quintus Horatius Flaccus (Horace) To unsubscribe or change your preferences for the Creed-Discuss list, visit: http://www.winduplist.com/ls/discuss/form.asp