Defining Insanity

[Holiday20310401]

I'm trying to define how somebody is sane, because I see a link to causality and sanity. To make it easier I will change actions to 'will'.
Emotion and logic help to determine the will, right?, without them there would be no motivation. Actually, this is what I'm questioning, is there another variable?
Majority influence: Even though I can't immediately think of a way to determine if somebody was more influenced by emotion or logic...
With this sort of thing you can just be certain about it and thats all that matters to me, truth is irrelevant which corresponds to how the future is not entirely certain, thus causality has limits. In terms of sanity/insanity: Perhaps somebody is defined as insane when one of either two things relate to their actions; 1) their logic is flawed 2) their logic is impeded when correlating to an action. (logic construes with morality, thus I mean that intellect has an amoral sense). Therefore, the majority influence on one's actions (when insane) is not of logic but of something else, like emotion. Say a psychopath. Their indifference and amorality sets the boundaries of logic due to either absence of emotion or certain emotions that have a negative impact.

Sane, is allowing logic to have majority influence, like saying 51% +, ( but I can't say that precisely, because it is undefined still), not allowing emotion to cause irrationality. Yes I know that rationality is attained through certain emotions, like compassion; but emotion is self insight, not corresponding to insight taken in through the society, thus latent.

Also, because I am new to this I wonder if emotion and logic are variables that affect each other, or are dependent on one another? This would change everything!
Importance: In the courts, when somebody pleas for insanity, people need to realise that there is no difference between somebody being logically impaired and people who feel unecessary to use logic for their will. So while people nowadays can diagnose the disorder that somebody has, a person who acted irrationally may be today's definition of sane, able to think very, very clearly, but emotion thrives their actions still, not logic, thats all that matters.
It would be insane for people to base purpose and will upon emotion, but without emotions there would be no will. So we are all somewhat insane, I would say humanity is more insane than sane. When we use logic I feel we tend to lead ourselves to a more selfless state and moral superiority, and when we use emotion we become selfish maybe because
We lack the ability to coalesce emotion throughout society (words are not feelings).

How would you define insanity, I'm not looking for Webster's definition. Also, plz! point out any mistakes or wrong assumptions in my argument. Leave libet out!!

Thanks for reading!!!

[GoshisDead]

Logic is a system/method and really can't be used as a meter for insanity, Sociopaths, often the most "violent" of the clinically insane are totally logical, totally rational, just highly machiavellian, or "the ends justify the means and I'll get there the most efficient way possible without exposing myself to opposition." Now that is pure logic. Insanity might be better defined as not processing reality in the same way your peers do.

[Holiday20310401]

Yes and that is where the disorder comes in, when their processes create conflicts in intellect to deviate from doing what is right. And I believe it is the disorder that is of course material is what causes change in the influence emotion and logic have on the will, or action. I'm trying to prove that logic can be hindered or can be ignored and still the will exists. But what defines the boundaries of logic and emotion being the influence upon the will; what is sane and insane in terms of amount of logic and emotion? Are humans all more consumed with emotion or logic? Which of the two really defines conscience. Or could you define conscience as more than one possibilities to exist.

'Will' 1: depending on pure logic- classification = ? (sane or insane)
'Will' 2: depending purely on emotion- classification = ? (sane or insane)
'Will' 3: depending on logic as majority influence = ? (sane or insane)
'Will' 4: depending on emotion as majority influence = ? (sane or insane)

I see sane as logic having majority influence upon the will or actions, the other 3 are insane, but to say that we do not correlate to the other three 'will's is false. We act upon those 4 at different times.

Question: What variables exist besides emotion and logic for the will?
Conscience: The sane 'will', the intent and motivator of right over wrong. The real question is at what point is the conscience displayed? Can it exist upon any of the four of the 'will's; or is conscience something that is triggered through causality, even a boolean system of thought would attribute to intention, but emotion is not a factor, it is simply pure logic.

When we have conscience our logic and emotion tend to affect one another, so we could say that conscience is a force that triggers the two variables to have effect for cause of sanity.

[Holiday20310401]

Or we could say that conscience triggers emotion to even exist, but that seems rather silly, could it be the other way around?

[Aedes]

"Insanity" is not a medical term, i.e. it doesn't correspond to anything in clinical psychiatry. The word is still used in legal contexts.

There is a concept behind the psychiatric disorder, though what defines it as a disorder is unique to each diagnosis.

Since modern psychiatry has clearly described different illnesses in so much detail, the idea of "insanity" is very anachronistic -- it's almost medieval in concept.

So let me ask you, how does your idea of insanity differ from medicine's concept of a psychiatric illness?

[Holiday20310401]

If a person has a disorder, they still have a 'will', and that should define their outcome as equal to those who are normal criminals. There should be no mental institution for the people with disorders. If they committed a crime, it was of their will, their will just happens to be insane, so place them in jail, an outcome of immoral will.

Also, off topic, have you read Macbeth? Wanted to define his sanity. lol. I believe him to be insane, and my analysis of sanity makes it easier to understand how Macbeth is insane and not sane.

[Doobah47]

There is a problem in using logic as a parameter for deciding the level of sanity somebody acts with. Logic is a sort of moral edged linear construct decided perhaps by the individual or perhaps by society in general or a single person/group; it seems entirely apt for use in the relation between x and reality, yet one must understand that there is always the concept of good/bad found in the logic of an action. Of course we can understand the logic apparent during a physics experiment (a different kind of logic, methinks), but I think the kind of logic you're talking of in terms of ascertaining the sanity of an individual is relevant to concepts of morality.

I think that most of the time a mentally ill person acts within logical parameters, yet the a -> b system (where '->' is logic) becomes confused into x -> b, and the logic becomes of secondary importance to the correlation between x/a and b. So for example where 'eating' (a) is followed logically by 'finishing eating' (b), an 'insane' person might think 'smoking' (x) is followed logically by b. So one could say that the insane person considers x and a to be integral to each other; in this case it is a widely held opinion that a smoke is part of a meal, but yet this could be consdered as illogical, and that logically smoking is an entirely different activity.

So what I mean to say is that it is probably not the logic that is confused but the objective actions that logic comes between which then cause the logic to appear illogical, and perhaps not the other way round (so the logic doesn't become illogical thus causing the objective actions to change, instead the objective actions change and the logic appears illogical). I think this infers that a/b/x are somewhat delusionary in nature, as I believe is the notion of perception.

[Holiday20310401]

To put it another way is .. What makes somebody insane? Is it their lack of logic or their lack of moral intent? If they lack moral intent then the outcome is the same as if somebody is insane as defined today by the courts, being lack of logic. Because logic follows through with morality better than emotion. Because after all, what defines conscience... moral intent or logic?

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

If a person has a disorder, they still have a 'will', and that should define their outcome as equal to those who are normal criminals. There should be no mental institution for the people with disorders. If they committed a crime, it was of their will, their will just happens to be insane, so place them in jail, an outcome of immoral will.

There is neither a legal nor medical concept of "will", though, so I don't see how this is possible. Furthermore, untreated mental illness is known to suffer greatly in prison, and poor outcomes including recidivism (repeat offense) and suicide improve if such offenders receive appropriate treatment.

People can have a capacity to understand consequences -- and that capacity can be demonstrably impaired by mental illness. People can have a capacity for judgement -- and this can be demonstrably impaired by mental illness.

The legal standard for "criminally insane", therefore, is directed towards people whose have a demonstrable inability to understand consequences and to make judgements accordingly.

I had a patient with schizophrenia once when I was in medical school who was repeatedly fired from his jobs because he was utterly convinced that the crows in the parking lot were talking to him, insulting him, and commanding him. He kept running outside to scare them away, and would go out and throw things at them to chase them off. This guy, who had very severe schizophrenia, did not have the capacity to differentiate reality from his hallucinations and delusions. So the whole concept of "will" is pretty trivial when one interfaces with reality in a wholly pathologic way.

Also, off topic, have you read Macbeth?

Yes, though it's been a while. Lady Macbeth, however, is the classic literary figure in history who suffered from symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Wanted to define his sanity. lol.

You can probably find a copy of the DSM-IV or one of its newer editions online. This is a standard text that lists diagnostic criteria for certain psychiatric disorders. Psychiatric disorders are often organized into mood (aka affective) disorders, which inlude depression, mania, bipolar, and anxiety; thought (aka psychotic) disorders, which include schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder; personality disorders, including borderline and antisocial disorders (and many others); dissociative disorders (like multiple personality disorder, amnestic disorder, and fugue states). There are others that I don't know how to categorize so well (I'm not a psychiatrist, though psychiatry permeates all of medicine) -- like PTSD (which I believe is a type of anxiety disorder), eating disorders, dementia, delirium, and others.

It's a great exercise, though, to look back at literary figures. I'd love to do that with The Brothers Karamazov. I guess King Lear is another Shakespeare character worthy of this kind of analysis.

Basically, the best authors understand that people are NOT entirely rational, and they are often self-destructive. This has been elaborated very well by modern psychology, which indeed undermines the concept of the will. Everyone from Freud and Jung onward understands that the rational part of us, which one might term the will, is constantly under assault by irrational aspects of us.

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by Aedes

The legal standard for "criminally insane", therefore, is directed towards people whose have a demonstrable inability to understand consequences and to make judgements accordingly.

Inability to understand and make judgements is due to lack of logic right? Or causes lack of logic, either way.
What is the difference between somebody who lacks ability to have intellectual cognition and those who choose logic to have a lesser potential upon their will.