It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I am insane, or I am just another!

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Insanity, is it reality or is it just another symptom?




Tell me, do we believe everything that our society provides us?

I do not know, do you? What are we to believe? Are we to believe what they have postulated? Are we to assume that everything is the TRUTH?


What is it that we are to believe? Really, what are we to believe?




posted on May, 31 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   
In the end, that is something we all have to decide for ourselves, isn't it?




posted on May, 31 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Or is nothing the truth. About the only thing I know for certain these days is that I don't know very much for sure. Just when I think something can't get any weirder, it does! And we know not to believe what the government tells us anymore, they have been caught in sooooooo many lies. What used to be science fiction is now science fact.
. I just try to keep a very open mind, take everything with a grain of salt, be careful who you talk to about certain subjects, I have been called really, really weird
more than once. Is reality real? I don't know.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 




In today's society, you cannot believe what anyone tells you until you do the research, find the facts for yourself and come to your own conclutions.


And you know that's the truth because I said so. You can beleive me right?



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


There are two kinds of knowledge, experiential knowledge, and that which we simply just know, whether it be from remembering that knowledge from some area outside of our bodies and time in this matter, energy, space and time, or if it be simply intuition, we all have that knowledge we can through experience, and then there are things we just know.

People said Copernicus and Galileo were insane. People said the Wright Brothers were insane. People have been declaring others insane for quite some time, and far longer than the history of psychiatry which now pretends only they are qualified to deem what is sane and what is not.

Insanity does exist, but that psychiatrists will testify on a stand as to who is "legally" insane, and then turn around and expand this definition in private practice, only goes to show how much disagreement everyone is on what is and what is not insane.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth" - Marcus Aurelius

Sanity is all relative. But then again, so is insanity. Wisdom comes in the realization that you truly 'know' nothing. But we can also figure things out about how things are currently acting, behaving, what laws they operate within, whether we are being told what is believed by the speaker to be the truth, etc.

Insanity, IMO, is really becoming so confused that you lose the ability to come to a lasting conclusion. You must be willing to keep certain assumptions until proved wrong, to be sane.
...
Good luck!



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by time91
 





Insanity, IMO, is really becoming so confused that you lose the ability to come to a lasting conclusion. You must be willing to keep certain assumptions until proved wrong, to be sane. ...


This is a great description of insanity. Discernment is key in keeping ones sanity. We must be able to distinguish and tell the difference between our perceptions, and what is real. We must be able to distinguish the difference between what we do and the effects of that cause. We must also be able to distinguish between what others do, and the effects of that cause. Discernment is key.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


It's actually quite simple. In the end, we believe what we want to believe despite any facts or evidence to the contrary. This applies equally to both sides of the proverbial aisle.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Well thank you. I didn't really think about insanity and what it means until looking at this thread. But I do think that discernment and perception are the difference between sanity and insanity. There are things we will never truly know, that force us to assume. The key (IMO) to sanity and the ability to learn is to be able to hold an assumption, unless proved absolutely wrong, and then also have the ability to change our view accordingly.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Whatever happened to the good old definition of insanity that says "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" is insanity?

Being able to process and learn from (and thereafter anticipate) the consequences of my own actions and respond (more or less) properly to the actions of others is how I personally define sanity.

But don't tell that little floating dude in the corner I said so or he'll get into an argument with me about it for sure.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by hhott
 


I literally just posted a thread with that at the beginning.
If at first you don't succeed... That is the old standby definition of insanity... But I don't think it is good enough to really describe it. It is useful when pointing out stupidity though.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by hhott
 


The definition you refer to is a quote of Albert Einsteins. There is truth in his remark, but Einstein was a notorious wise cracker, and this quote was never in any way accepted as the standard definition by which to define insanity, if it were, people who get married numerous times, all ending in divorce, would be deemed insane, and probably denied a license to marry. Which brings up a valid question. How sane is it to ask the state permission to marry someone?



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Well, I didn't mean to imply that it is an official definition, but personally I think it is nearly as good of a "working" definition as many others.

And btw, although it's off topic, you don't ask the state for permission to marry someone, you prove to the state that you are eligible by the state's laws to marry .. just like you get a license to drive by proving your identity and passing the tests ..

I could agree that the state possibly shouldn't be allowed to determine who is eligible (qualified?) to marry, but that's a whole different discussion.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by hhott
 





And btw, although it's off topic, you don't ask the state for permission to marry someone, you prove to the state that you are eligible by the state's laws to marry .. just like you get a license to drive by proving your identity and passing the tests ..


You are playing semantics in regards to a license to marry. A license by definition, legal definition, is a grant of permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal. Further, the whole license to drive thing is yet another question of sanity. Historically speaking the DMV's did not begin by asserting that "driving is a privilege, and not a right", this assertion came through incremental changes and various memes put out by government, not to mention the willful dumbing down of public education. Consider the what The Drivers Handbook for Detroit, Michigan in 1937 had to say about the right to drive.

Before the automobile was even invented, people drove horse and buggy's, but there was no such thing as the DHB, Department of Horse and Buggy's, and no one needed a license to drive one, nor a license to ride a horse, and the dangers that come with automobiles also came, and still remain, with driving horse and buggy's, or riding horses. The notion that this licensing scheme is necessary for people to pass certain tests somehow makes the roads safer ignores all the incompetent driving by people with a license to drive, and proving ones identity has nothing to do with driving.

Finally, I am glad that you are willing to consider the dubious contention that the state has the right to decide who is and who isn't eligible to marry, but I would argue neither the question of license to marry, or license to drive are off topic. Both licensing schemes are believed to be valid based upon memes put out in society, and this speaks to the very core of what endisnighe asked in his O.P...how sane is it to ask permission of the state to do that which is your right to do?



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   
perhaps insanity is true clarity, a perfect understanding or perception of our world. no filter of ego, as for truth, i am learning truth is whatever you want it to be. our govt's have taught me this. to believe in nothing makes our lives meaningless. so i believe in whatever makes me feel good.
i do believe more people are waking up to the insanity of our existence as i believe you are aswell.

ask questions don't ever stop asking questions when you think you have learned everything, you really know nothing. the questions are the key question everything
reality god govt religion science yourself



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by hhott
 

You are playing semantics in regards to a license to marry. A license by definition, legal definition, is a grant of permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal.


I concede the point. Playing semantics was not intentional; from your first post I was thinking in terms of asking a father for permission to marry his daughter, and IMO getting a marriage license isn't the same...


how sane is it to ask permission of the state to do that which is your right to do?


It goes back to what I said about the consequences of one's own behavior, and making "sane" choices based on foreseeable consequences. No matter how irrational I think it is to pay taxes to the gov't on property that I paid for and supposedly own, need a license to drive or marry, pay the state/govt taxes if I make a product myself and sell it to someone, etc. etc..

The consequences of *not* following these laws, no matter how irrational I think the laws may be, are fines, property seizure, correctional custody, and so forth. Therefore I personally consider the most "sane" behavior as that which does not result in consequences which are unacceptable to me. An inability to recognize the cause -> effect nature of such consequences and/or the inability to choose to behave in a manner that avoids undesirable consequences .. well, IMO, that is one possible "definition" for insanity.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by hhott
 





The consequences of *not* following these laws, no matter how irrational I think the laws may be, are fines, property seizure, correctional custody, and so forth. Therefore I personally consider the most "sane" behavior as that which does not result in consequences which are unacceptable to me. An inability to recognize the cause -> effect nature of such consequences and/or the inability to choose to behave in a manner that avoids undesirable consequences .. well, IMO, that is one possible "definition" for insanity.


The consequences of fighting and loosing the Revolution of 1776 meant certain death by execution for our Founders, but the consequences of not fighting that revolution, and obeying the laws of Britain were unacceptable to them. It was a revolt on a tea on tax that ignited that revolution, and there was no income tax in existence at that time. Yet today, there are many who fight passionately against the income tax that has been levied in perpetuity since it was first passed in 1913, and those who are fight against it are labeled insane by much of the mainstream media and, of course, government. By today's standard, the Founders of this Nation would all be viewed as insane, even though they lived in era known as The Age of Reason.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Ah, Jean Paul .. you accuse me now not of insanity but of cowardice. That may be, by your standards, but it is a different issue altogether. I can choose to accept the consequences of rebellion, protest, non-violent or violent refusal to obey the laws for a "greater" cause or purpose and be sane, or I can choose to obey the laws even though I perceive them to be irrational or unjust in order to keep what freedom I have and the things which I care about, and be sane.

The inability to understand the relationship between my actions or lack of action and the consequences thereof, or the inability to ponder the justice or rationality of the laws apart from the choice to obey them or not, might better be considered insanity. In my humble opinion, of course.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by hhott
 


No accusations have been leveled at you, nor anyone else in this thread. I am not clear why you would take a simple discussion about insanity, and choose to take my arguments made in that regard personally. My standards are much higher than that, and it will do no good to take my arguments as a personal attack. No one, and certainly not I, is telling you what to do. Indeed, several posts in this thread, including my own have suggested quite the opposite, and that each person must decide for themselves what is sane, and what is not sane. However, if one endeavors to argue that rebellion or questioning authority is not the preferred option of sane people, I will speak to that, and will not apologize for doing so, your hurt feelings notwithstanding.



[edit on 1-6-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Did I say my feelings were hurt or that I was upset? No. I'm quite aware that I'm not the brave, courageous, "damn the torpedoes" sort of person who bucks the system and takes the consequences, and I've accepted that about myself. A sign that I'm not completely insane, in my own opinion. My point was that choosing not to rebel in order to protect one's personal liberty and property is more an indication of one's courage, convictions, or commitment (or lack thereof) than an indication of sanity or insanity.

Why take one sentence out of context, address it as though I had complained about a personal attack, and ignore the rest of the post's content and meaning?

I said .. or meant to say .. that considered rebellion and choosing not to rebel are both likely the actions of one who is sane, and insanity is perhaps more the inability to understand the distinction and rationally make the choice. Those who mindlessly obey the laws without considering if they should, as well as those who rebel against all laws, rules, and authority just because it is what it is, are in my humble opinion the ones more likely to be insane.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join