================================================ Subject: Re: NCR: philosophical talk is back From: "creed -7m3 - live" To: Date: Sat 1 Sep 2001 22:32:24 -0400 ================================================ > > 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, > > I think this wording might be better. Of course, I think the definitions > of what we view as intelligent and exceeding in creative thinking can vary. > I guess I think that the whole question is general but tries to be way too > specific to "one group" of people. Of course, some people who are "viewed" > as highly intelligent may have a breakdown, but the "average" and "below > average" could very well have a breakdown too. I don't necessarily believe > there is some HUGE correlation between highly intelligent and breakdown. > Couldn't one who is NOT highly intelligent have a breakdown, because they > feel inadequate? Couldn't this highly intelligent person have a breakdown, > because they still don't feel they are intelligent enough? You are right. People that are considered to be average are just as likely to go insane. As a person that is considered a genius. Depending upon the pressure put on them. By society or family members. The might still feel like they are not smart enough. But I'd venture a guess, that a more likely reason would be from peer pressure and ridicule. > >.... > > Yes, it is, but it is also a tough thing to feel as though you can never > > measure up due to lacking intelligence. I agree with that view. It is tough to feel that you could never understand something. No matter how much effort that you put into something. I'm kind of at a loss with the term intelligence. Since I have always thought that it simply meant the ability to catch onto concepts easily. Without a lot of explaination. I never considered someone that could absorb mass ammounts of information, as being intelligent. Unless they could apply the information to real life problems. And build upon thier knowledge base with correlating ideas. It is a good thing that we are debating the question and its narrow scope. > > > > > 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.) > > > > But were they found to be "legally" insane? > Times were different and I imagine that "legally insane" was not even a thought of. I believe that the atmosphere was more ripe for superstitions and not towards established and defined laws. > 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. > > I believe that if this man killed some person, didn't try to conceal his > actions, then started to eat this person openly, this country would indeed > find him to be legally insane. Is this act something the "reasonable" man > would do? Definitely NOT (I say this leaving the nutrition comment out of > the scenario at this time.) > > But would he legally be insane? > > > If this person did this and claimed this was done because of drugs, he > would most likely NOT be found to be legally insane, as I believe drugs are > not allowed in a court of law to be a reason to plead insanity. > I saw an episode of a TV show. Where there was a person that would be insane. Without the use of medication. So the use of drugs to either inhibit insane actions or that cause insane actions is a tricky arena. I don't really follow the laws regarding drugs as a defense. But I imagine that the courts would condemn them for the drug usage and the crime. That is, if the person was aware that he was using drugs and they were not "slipped" to them, from another individual or group of individuals. Later, Jim > -- In the middle of a wide field is a pot of gold. 100 feet to the north stands a smart manager. 100 feet to the south stands a dumb manager. 100 feet to the east is the Easter Bunny, and 100 feet to the west is Santa Claus. Q: Who gets to the pot of gold first? A: The dumb manager. All the rest are myths. To unsubscribe or change your preferences for the Creed-Discuss list, visit: http://www.winduplist.com/ls/discuss/form.asp