What qualifications ought there be for sanity?

[Avgvsto]

Is there sanity, if so what criteria would you use for determining a persons sanity?


Is sanity an arbitrary way for categorizing a person? How do you determine if a person is not in their right mind or if their right mind is simply contradictory to your right mind?

[Jeff the Kitten]

Avgvsto

Is there sanity, if so what criteria would you use for determining a persons sanity?


Is sanity an arbitrary way for categorizing a person? How do you determine if a person is not in their right mind or if their right mind is simply contradictory to your right mind?

Quasi quantum gizmo hepta-hydrate baby formula. Only joking. The scientific method exists on the presumption that what the vast number of the population can vibe with using their senses, not their ideas, is the actual factual universe. So, when one person starts screaming about talking cannibal diapers chasing them and nobody else can use any semblance of the scientific method to prove that those diabolical diapers exist in the actual, factual universe; it must logically be a trick of the mind and the viewer must be mentally confused or, if in a persistent case, insane.

[chainmailleman]

Well if there is a definition for insanity, Gaia would be listed as a synonym.

[Avgvsto]

YourNeighborsCat

Quasi quantum gizmo hepta-hydrate baby formula. Only joking. The scientific method exists on the presumption that what the vast number of the population can vibe with using their senses, not their ideas, is the actual factual universe.

Is this fair to do? How do we determine if these people are not prophets, seeing the world for what it really is?

[Jeff the Kitten]

Avgvsto

YourNeighborsCat

Quasi quantum gizmo hepta-hydrate baby formula. Only joking. The scientific method exists on the presumption that what the vast number of the population can vibe with using their senses, not their ideas, is the actual factual universe.

Is this fair to do? How do we determine if these people are not prophets, seeing the world for what it really is?

Scientific method my boiiiiiii. Also most cases aren't grandiose in nature, and rarely if ever are cases independent of each other exactly the same. So your multiple enlightened people hypothesis goes out of the window unless you want to believe thousands of contradicting views of what the world actually is.

[the reverend silver]

Avgvsto

Is there sanity

nope


But on a serious note, it's a judgement call.

[the reverend silver]

YourNeighborsCat

So your multiple enlightened people hypothesis goes out of the window unless you want to believe thousands of contradicting views of what the world actually is.

Maybe that is it, or a part of it.

[Chahklet]

Not you and not GSK.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

But what if the fire doesn't hide the sources?

Yes, I think it is.

[Holidazed]

I think the only time we should be concerned about sanity is if the person is a danger to themselves or others and if their view causes them to constantly break the law.

Sanity is relative at some points in history you were insane for thinking the world was round, that there was small creatures that caused disease, etc etc etc..

[from blue to]

No sanity allowed in my home. Beyond that, I don't know; maybe there is sanity, but I'll have nothing to do with it.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

from blue to

No sanity allowed in my home. Beyond that, I don't know; maybe there is sanity, but I'll have nothing to do with it.

There are the ones that you found though, right?

It's not there for me.

[Jeff the Kitten]

the reverend silver

YourNeighborsCat

So your multiple enlightened people hypothesis goes out of the window unless you want to believe thousands of contradicting views of what the world actually is.

Maybe that is it, or a part of it.

M8 wot. If you believe that a mythical amphibian that is actually a mammal, no an amphibian, no a mammal ect... that is actually two mammals and a fossilized Pepsi bottle from the thirty first century want you simultaneously walk a mile and not move of your own volition then you are... insane.

[the reverend silver]

YourNeighborsCat

the reverend silver

YourNeighborsCat

So your multiple enlightened people hypothesis goes out of the window unless you want to believe thousands of contradicting views of what the world actually is.

Maybe that is it, or a part of it.

M8 wot. If you believe that a mythical amphibian that is actually a mammal, no an amphibian, no a mammal ect... that is actually two mammals and a fossilized Pepsi bottle from the thirty first century want you simultaneously walk a mile and not move of your own volition then you are... insane.

Maybe, or maybe forces beyond our comprehension are warping that person's view of reality.

We'll never know for sure. It's like arguing about out-of-place artifacts or evolution.

[the reverend silver]

YourNeighborsCat

Avgvsto

YourNeighborsCat

Quasi quantum gizmo hepta-hydrate baby formula. Only joking. The scientific method exists on the presumption that what the vast number of the population can vibe with using their senses, not their ideas, is the actual factual universe.

Is this fair to do? How do we determine if these people are not prophets, seeing the world for what it really is?

Scientific method my boiiiiiii.

It's not a magickal divination, it doesn't work that way.