I have always been fascinated by the definitions and existential implications of sanity and insanity. Let’s first have a look at the generally accepted definitions and synonyms of these interesting and controversial terms after which I will give my own ideas on the subject.
Oh. Just before we start, here’s something to shake your sanity a bit:
There is no art without the observer
and no observer without art,
for art is mind and mind is art…
Now, according to the English (U.S.) Thesaurus, some synonyms for the word “sanity” are: “good sense”; “wisdom”; “reason”; “understanding”; “common sense”; “sense”; “judgment”; etc.
If you look up the word in an encyclopedia you would find definitions such as the following: “The condition of being mentally healthy and able to make rational decisions based on common sense, reasonableness, and predictability. The term is ultimately, derived from the Latin word “sanus”, meaning whole or sound.”
Synonyms for “insanity” are: “madness”; “lunacy”; “psychosis”; “mental illness”; etc. In reference to an encyclopedia we find a definition such as this:
“Disorder characterized by disturbances in a person’s thoughts, emotions, or behaviour. The term mental illness can refer to a wide variety of disorders, ranging from those that cause mild distress to those that severely impair a person’s ability to function. Mental health professionals sometimes use the terms psychiatric disorder or psychopathology to refer to mental illness.”
So now that we have a basic idea of the currently accepted classifications of the two very opposite terms we can start contemplating their true meaning and validity. First of all, I want to raise a very important point. The nature or conditions in which definitions or views concerning human behaviour and everyday social phenomena are formed reside in the mental sphere of the social norm. In other words, the criteria imposed on the acceptance of a view or definition is whether or not the majority percentile of people discussing a definition agrees to it, while the latter is wholly dependant on the observation of behaviour and character of most people in a current social context. In short, the norm determines what is viewed as “Normal” and those falling outside of this norm are considered to be “Abnormal”. Thus we can see that there can never be an absolute or fixed definition of anything, as times and human conditions are perpetually subjected to change.
For instance, in times of war, be that civil or international, the definition of a suitable or useful person changes instantaneously: people who were previously seen as hostile or over aggressive are now considered as invaluable assets in their ability to defend their country and in not being scared to kill another human being for the greater purpose. Similarly, those people who are sensitive, law abiding and considerate human beings are now seen as being a weakness and possibly a danger to the safety of their country.
Isn’t this a perfect example of “Normality” and “Abnormality” swapping sides? Because now in the condition of war those who were previously labeled as being “Normal” are unable to function in a useful way and evidently the former “Abnormal” ones are now the determining factor in achieving victory for society.
