We are all InSaNe

Thanks wierdman. ==Definitions== Wierdman tries to point out that there can be a dichotomy where one of the concepts is unachievable (perfection/imperfection). However, there are two problems with this: 1) Even if perfection is only an abstract concept, it is still a coherent concept in the abstract, whereas "sanity" is not coherent as an abstraction. We can still understand "perfection" even if everything in the world were imperfect. Perfection simply means maximizing all positive traits and minimizing all negative traits. A "perfect fit" would mean that our pants conformed more to our body than the pants we are currently wearing. We can understand this abstract concept when applied in conversation. "I wish I had perfect abs." Sanity is not a coherent concept in the abstract. If we all receive faulty information from our brains and insanity is defined as "receiving faulty information from one's brain," then what does it mean to be sane? Furthermore, this raises philosophical problems, such as: how do we know what correction information is if our brains always corrupt the information. If we see a flower and all our brains lie, is the flower really there? 2) The second problem is that perfection is not solely an abstract concept. A perfect sphere is attainable. So in geometry, the perfect/imperfect dichotomy is a non-abstract dichotomy. Therefore, my opponent has yet to provide an example of a dichotomy in which one of the terms does not exist. If weirdman fails to prove insanity is a coherent concept without "sanity," then he loses the debate. If we are all insane, that term has no meaning. ==Rebuttal== R1) "Lying" to ourselves Wierdman gives a hypothetical example where someone fails a test and then tells himself that he is stupid, even though he isn't. There's a lot of problems with this example: 1) How do we know that this a typical response? In fact, psychologists have long known that people tend to blame their own failings on exogenous circumstances ("that test was hard", "the teacher didn't teach us any of these things") rather than endogenous circumstances ("I'm stupid"). In fact, the concept of "fundamental attribution error" is the tendency of people to explain their own failings exogenously and other people's failings endogenously. If a co-worker fails at a task, people are likely to say, "gosh, he's so stupid," whereas if they themselves fail, they usually conclude that the task was difficult. Yet in regards to others, the difficulty of the task tends not to occur to people. So the scenario wierdman describes doesn't even seem like a typical response. 2) The voice in our heads is not "lying" to us. Sometimes we are stupid. This serves a rational, evolutionary purpose. Scenario A: If a caveman hit on a hot cavewoman, and she completely rejected him, then the little voice in his head says: you're not very attractive; you're not a very desirable mate. As a result, he lowers his standards and hits on the less hot cavewomen. This maximizes his chances of reproduction. If he wrongly believed himself to be a ladies' man and always sought mates that were outside his reach, then he'd fail to reproduce. Scenario B: if a caveman tries to hunt a wolf, gets in a tussle, and loses, then his mind tells him: "you're not strong enough to kill a wolf." This maximizes his survival chances and thus his chances of passing on his genes. Wierdman even acknowledges this when he says that when we are honest with ourselves, we are able to disengage from unattainable goals. 3) Definitions How does "lying to ourselves" prove people are "mentally unstable"? Wierdman claims that he is proving his case under both definitions. Wierdman also fails to show that the mind systematically lies to people, although it may do so in certain situations. 4) Clinical depression Wierdman mentions clinical depression. How would this make sense as a disorder if there is no "normal" frame of comparison? R2) Mood swings As wierdman points out, having a range of emotions is normal. The first problem with his argument is that many changes in emotional state are precipitated by outside events. For example, his own source points out that sudden onsets of lethargy or "down" moods are often caused by plummeting blood sugar. Whenever we eat a meal, this causes our blood sugar to spike, and when it spikes upward, we will have an equally low downward spike a few hours later. Another example: normal depression is caused by exogenous events, such as experiencing a "break up" in a relationship, having a bad day at work, etc. Unexplained, extreme mood swings are categorized as a psychiatric disorder, namely manic depression, in which patients experience "manic" moods characterized by extreme happiness and hyperactivity and depressive moods, characterized by the sudden (and unexplained) onset of depression. Wierdman's own source says, "People who are experiencing a mood swing that's been going on for more than a few weeks and is seriously affecting their friendships, relationship, school work, etc. should consider seeking professional help for the issue." This proves that mood swings are not typical of the average person. I personally have never experienced a completely unexplained change in mood. R3) Pondering the future Wierdman argues we are insane because we sit and think about the future, to the point of ignoring the present. Yet, again, he fails to show that this is typical behavior. Taken to the extreme, this would be a psychological disorder (e.g. the complete inability to consider the present); people with such a disorder would starve to death, while in their dream-state about the future, without outside interference. Yet, not a single case has been reported. Thinking about the future is what sets us apart from many lower order animals. It allows us to build shelter BEFORE winter sets in. Thinking about the future is a key survival trait. It also lets us consider the consequences of our actions. Antisocial personality disorders are characterized by an inability to consider the future and thus ponder the consequences of one's actions. [1] So, in fact, the opposite of what Wierdman describes is classified as "insane." R4) Competition Competition is not insane; we were forced to compete for mates, food, etc. Competition is rational; it's the desire to be the best at something and establish one's place in the social hierarchy. Having a competitive drive is a key survival trait. In addition, Wierdman fails to prove that people routinely participate in competition to the exclusion of their other interests. I've never heard of someone starving to death because he was so intent on beating everyone at basketball. Depending on the social setting, we will either compete or cooperate. Businesses are very careful to cue their employees on when they want them to compete and when they want them to cooperate. R5) Adjectives vs. adverbs Wierdman's last point is that we have all done something insane, therefore we are all insane. However, DOING something insane is different from BEING insane. The word takes on a different meaning when it is modifying a person vs. modifying an action. Insanity is characterized by a complete inability to function normally. If a man chases after his lover across a busy street, after they've been in a fight, with cars whizzing by him, he has ACTED insane. However, there is a perfectly rational explanation for his behavior. If a schizophrenic crosses a busy street, with cars whizzing by, because he thinks he's in a movie and "none of this is real," then he IS insane. So there's a huge difference in the word insane when used as an adverb vs. an adjective. Acting insane is not the same as being insane. [1] http://www.enotes.com...