================================================ Subject: Re: NCR: philosophical talk is back From: "Lisa King" To: Date: Sat 1 Sep 2001 03:32:55 +0000 ================================================ This is submitted all in my own humble oppinion: I do not think genius, (no matter how it is defined), would neccessarily lean towards insanity, (no matter how it is defined). I think it would depend more on circumstance, health, and personality. Lisa take a chance and wadding right in >From: creed -7m3 - live >Reply-To: creed -7m3 - live >To: CREED-DISCUSS@WINDUPLIST.COM >Subject: Re: NCR: philosophical talk is back >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 _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp To unsubscribe or change your preferences for the Creed-Discuss list, visit: http://www.winduplist.com/ls/discuss/form.asp