Insanity is...?

[faith]

What makes someone crazy?

I've heard not being able to function properly in society, like not recognizing social roles and boundaries, means someone is insane. But there's got to be some point where, even though no one can tell from their everyday actions, an individual's personal life is just too extreme...

Any ideas, thoughts, etc?

 

[nekoi]

Insanity is when you just really can't handle what's around you, & you just lose all focus on what's wrong & right... it's sort of being stressed; in the sense that you tend tos nap at people without real reason.

 

[faith]

but snapping at people is still an indication of social misconduct. I mean people with no outer indications.

 

[nekoi]

I'm not so sure.. everytime I look at insanity, it seems to be a reaction from some sort of incident or thought capacity that doesn't really show much behavior restraint..

 

[Arison]

Sanity is the playground for the Unimaginative.

 

[flowersofnight]

According to the law (going back to the M'Naghten case), you're legally insane if your mental state is such that you can't tell right from wrong. (which again goes back to how you fit into society) If you ask my opinion, the type of "insane" you're asking about might be something where your perceptions are completely out of touch with the actual world around you, as in what you see and hear aren't really there, etc... Also, you might want to keep in mind that, as far as I know, "insane" isn't an accepted medical term at all; a psychiatrist won't just diagnose you as insane and leave it at that.

In your opinion, if you know you're "insane" and can still block it out and function in society, are you really "insane"?

 

[LejuN]

I agree. If you think you're insane or more rather "know" you are insane... you probably aren't.

Yes, you may notice that you see things differently, or you have some common crazy thoughts or sights that most people with a little insight have but are normally too disturbed by to speak about.

+LejuN+

 

[faith]

I agree. If you think you're insane or more rather "know" you are insane... you probably aren't.

Yes, you may notice that you see things differently, or you have some common crazy thoughts or sights that most people with a little insight have but are normally too disturbed by to speak about.

+LejuN+

^^ Lejun makes a good demented popple, if it's okay with him.

Well, that's the thing. My friend cuts her wrists, and she knows that's bad and has asked for help, and so she's maybe not insane then. Although I think she asked for help because she wanted attention...
But what of people who know that other people would consider their way of thinking and lifestyle wrong so they don't tell anyone about it, but at the same time they don't think what theyre doing is wrong, they think it's just a way of living other people don't get? I'm just really curious. I was thinking about Gackt's asylum experiences and realized I have no idea what insanity is...

In your opinion, if you know you're "insane" and can still block it out and function in society, are you really "insane"?

That's what I'm trying to find out...I think maybe that is insanity, it's just an extremely self-controlled insanity. Usually it's associated with loss of control, right? But maybe there's such a thing as too much control as well, and that's what made people like Asahara Shouko gurus (they don't fit into society either, and encourage other people to do the same under their name. Accepting responsibility for other people's deviance might be insanity if it's considered wrong, as it is in Japan. If you can define right and wrong anyway). This's always confused me so much :?

 

[Nocturne]

I beleive to be sane, you must get a taste of insanity, because usually then you will see more than one side to things.

 

[gwendel]

Flowers is correct that "insane" is strictly a legal term, and that a doctor cannot just diagnose you as insane. It needs to be declared by a court that you were incapable of understanding that what you did was a crime.

Beyond that, it goes into question of whether or not a person has a mental illness, and there are a wide variety of those, with varying treatments, and the factors for determining if a person is mentally ill are probably just as subjective to the doctors' opinion as they might be in a court case. I seem to recall from my first-year Psychology course that there is even a definition of severe PMS as a type of mental illness, although I forget what factors were involved in that classification, and it seemed a bit sketchy to me.

My only personal experience with the question of mental stability is the question of whether a senior citizen is too senile to legally function in making decisions about their care and personal property, because I've had to personally deal with that question with lawyers more than once recently. It seems to be a very difficult question of where the line is actually drawn, so...

 

[Anonymous]

I'll go with gwendel on this one. 'Insanity' to me should only be associated with mental illness but that's not as subjective as she made it sound. Personality disorders don't fall under 'insanity' to me which tend to be the trend nowadays. Nor would I classify depression for example as a mental illness that makes you necessarily insane, unless it comes in a very severe form and is associated with other symptoms. So in other words, only mental illnesses that alter your perception of reality would fit my criteria, or make you physically unable to process thoughts the way most people do. And when I say perception of reality I don't mean a different world view or behavioral patterns. Read up on schizophrenia if you want to know what altered reality really is.

But I don't like the word 'insane' exactly cause it's so subjective.

Oh and to your question faith, many people with severe mental illness function in society under medication or even without, just like people with AIDS do. The only one who can tell you if they're insane is a psychiatrist.

 

[ange_de_lumiere]

Boom, boom...aint it great to be craaaaazy!

Is there some sort of link between creativity and insanity? After all, it's been commonly stated that those who are artists and poets have a greater tendency towards mental illness--especially depression. Vincent VanGogh ate his paints (drank the thinner too) and chopped off part of his left ear, Virginia Woolf filled her pockets with stones and drowned herself in a river, Sylvia Plath stuck her head in an oven. Is it because they see a greater, grimmer truth to life, and the pain of the world through their eyes is just too much to take in?

I don't quite know what's with working on particular pieces, but from my own experience it really forces you to reflect upon your emotions and thoughts, concentrate them into one great bundle and render this bundle into whatever you may be working on. Well I guess that may not apply to everyone, but I know that just cooping myself up in my room for a few hours by myself doing nothing but drawing by myself is enough to leave me in misery, emotionally very ill. But I really enjoy doing it anyways, is it not a form of insanity! *enthusiastic thumbs-up for the art-induced suffering* b [] d

But when it comes to insanity, why is it so scrutinized, to do things that deviate from society... With eccentric artists such as Salvador Dali, who purposely did rediculously silly things for attention like lecturing with his foot immersed in a pail of milk at the Sorbonne in Paris, and boiling a lobster on his head during a conference, it really makes me wonder if what is sane and logical is really a road block for creativity. He may have been one strange man, but what would the Surrealist Movement have been--what would the world have been like, without "insane" people such as Dali...

 

[Eresjkigal]

i think the definition of insanity is something personal, just like the definition of "normal". it all depends on what you're used to.

my definition of insanity would be when a person becomes a threat to him/herself and his/her environment, and if a person can't take care of him/herself (unless there's something wrong with the persons body of course)

 

[gwendel]

Re: Boom, boom...aint it great to be craaaaazy!

Is there some sort of link between creativity and insanity? After all, it's been commonly stated that those who are artists and poets have a greater tendency towards mental illness--especially depression. Vincent VanGogh ate his paints (drank the thinner too) and chopped off part of his left ear, Virginia Woolf filled her pockets with stones and drowned herself in a river, Sylvia Plath stuck her head in an oven. Is it because they see a greater, grimmer truth to life, and the pain of the world through their eyes is just too much to take in?

Well, I can't speak for all the people that you've mentioned, ange, but there is actually a theory that I personally wonder about that Van Gogh, as well as a number of people from that time period, suffered from dementia/depression as a result of poisoning from tainted alcohol. Van Gogh was a regular drinker, and it was a common practice at the time to put in as filler all sorts of unhealthy yet cheap things, like varnish, to make selling the drinks more profitable. This sort of thing wasn't properly regulated, so...

There are a number of cases of this sort of thing from that time documented in associated with drinking "bad liquor". That's how absinthe got it's reputation as an evil drink (it was popular at that time in France, among other places).

There's been a theory that Edgar Allan Poe suffered from rabies, but if you read his biography, you will notice a pattern of him becoming successful and making a bit of money, going off somewhere and starting drinking, then because of it, losing his job/status, whatever, then selling another story and starting the cycle all over again. I wonder if he didn't just have a bit of social anxiety disorder, which was aggravated by his addiction to the drinking, and whatever could have possibly been in whatever he was drinking. ^.^;;;

Of course, this is just me speculating in association with what data I've read about various people. Having read the biographies of a number of famous fine artists, the majority of them seem to be rather sane artisans who lived to be a ripe old age with success. It's only more recently, from the Impressionist period onward, do you start seeing the more surrealist work, and people with depression/drug addictions, who end up dying or killing themselves at earlier ages. Of course, that's not true of everyone form that period too, but it's a trend I noticed once flipping through my art history books. Why? I don't know. It could be a factor of the social climate they were working in, because the greatest amount who commited suicide/used drugs were during the 60's/70's, when that sort of thing wasn't too uncommon all across the board.

And thank you, Amasanin, I think you did a very good job of more narrowly defining what I said. Just like the devil, I tip my hat to you.

 

[flowersofnight]

Re: Boom, boom...aint it great to be craaaaazy!

There are a number of cases of this sort of thing from that time documented in associated with drinking "bad liquor". That's how absinthe got it's reputation as an evil drink (it was popular at that time in France, among other places).

Maybe so, but even properly made absinthe will really mess you up because of the thujone in it. That's why it's banned in most places...

There's been a theory that Edgar Allan Poe suffered from rabies

Rabies?? o_O He would have just died... you can't live with it. Either you get cured early on or you're toast... just recently a few days ago there was the first-ever case of someone surviving rabies without being immediately vaccinated.


.... not that this has anything to do with the main topic. Carry on...

 

[Anonymous]

Is there some sort of link between creativity and insanity?

In regards to everything you said, not just that quote:

Again, that would depend on your definition of insanity. Just because someone kills themselves, even in the strangest way, I would not call them insane (nor does psychiatry). Many people kill themselves with perfect clarity of mind and are very deliberate about it (and who's to say they're not really the only sane ones). Dali that you mentioned, as well as the rest of the surrealists, I would never even think of calling insane just based on their ideas or lifestyle. I don't even understand why they would have to be called insane just for being imaginative and eccentric enough to perceive art or life itself a certain way that was not 'realistic'. Artists/Creators, yes - Insane, why? If one of them happened to indeed suffer from mental illness, I'd say was not the point.

And even if we take an artist who does/did for a fact suffer from mental illness as an example, I think it would most likely be a case of their already unique or just 'different' perception of things, or their extreme sensitivity, or any other particular mental state that brought this creativity out of them to begin with, being eventually cause for them to become otherwise unstable - not the other way around. They could of course still feed off their 'insanity' to create - but that the 'insanity' itself was the cause of their creativity or otherwise directly linked to it seems a wrong way to look at it to me. Any health problem - mental or otherwise - deters you from creating, not only art but anything whatsoever. So no. Their personalities might have been the cause of both their art and their insanity, but the last two causing each other I believe is just wrong and insulting to them.

And maybe I missunderstood but did you imply that creating itself can make you insane? As in, the actual act of isolating yourself in order to draw or write and the energy you put into it? If that were the case, you have no business trying to be an 'artist' in the first place. In my humble opinion always....

 

[flowersofnight]

You might want to check ange_de_lumiere's post again because she's saying the opposite. No one in this thread has been saying that "artists are just insane" or that creativity and mental illness can be lumped together/equated. In this thread we've been discussing a more general notion of "insanity" as it relates to how one fits into society. I don't think the notion of the artist as outsider is too controversial; do you see how the concept of "insanity" as a failure to fit into society might be complementary to that?

Point being: organic disorders of the brain are not what we're discussing here; we're debating the social construction of insanity.

Finally: I don't think it's right to say anyone has "no business being an artist". I don't recall there being an official standard for who can do art and who can't.

 

[Anonymous]

I realise that we had different opinions on what 'insane' is (not everyone agreed on it being related to someone's role in society) and I stated mine first, then also said that what I'm about to say depends on your definition, and then finally went on to say what I did.

organic disorders of the brain are not what we're discussing here; we're debating the social construction of insanity.

Parhaps not what you were discussing, but ange clearly wrote: 'After all, it's been commonly stated that those who are artists and poets have a greater tendency towards mental illness'. I think I indicated that I was replying to her post specifically. And I wasn't replying in order to attack her either, so why can't we be agreeing?

I don't think it's right to say anyone has "no business being an artist". I don't recall there being an official standard for who can do art and who can't.

'My humble opinion' is not an official standard. Even though it should be.

 

[ange_de_lumiere]

Much Madness is divinest Sense-- Oh how I love it!!

I did state that it is commonly perceived that artists are more prone to mental problems, but not to state a fact (or else I would have outright stated it as fact.) I said this in an effort to increase our awareness of exactly what we consider insane. What I was trying to say, was it's not that those who are creative are more prone to have biological mental problems that should be diagnosed and given pills for or something...but rather, because of their likeliness to deviate from what is average in society, they are more likely to be cast out. Artists can be in some cases, a misunderstood lot.

And sure it's also been considered that there's a higher likelihood for depression among artists, but if that's true, then in my opinion that's really a result of the intensity of their emotions and the world they take in--nothing to ever be considered biologically insane for. If anything, I feel we need more people who are passionate about this earth and what it means to be alive (or very well dead.) And then there's the consideration of lifestyle and the time the artist is living in as well. The life of Van Gogh was very sad; I don't consider him a crazy person just because he cut off part of his ear...and strange acts of suicide are not acts of craziness either--especially if the depression and eventual suicide was due to something such as WWII, as in Virginia Woolf's case.

And then, take into consideration how I labeled Dali as "insane" with quotation marks, rather than outright insane. Many people thought he was a madman back in his day, and surely he may have been eccentric...but if anything I feel that this ties into his bold character--not that anything was born broken inside his head. Secretly, I actually admire his "insanity!" (quote-and-quote.) But as you were saying Ama, about his imagination and desires to deviate from reality, it makes the world a more brilliant place--rather than making him worthy of being locked up. He did such things on purpose, he sought after shock value and certain psychological effects (he was fascinated with Freud.)

To discuss one more artist (poet,) many people thought Emily Dickinson was strange and depressed just for choosing to live her life at home and away from society, and she was lucky not to have gotten sent to an institution. Many women--much more commonly than men--got sent to institutions during her time when they simply acted "out of place," and I highly doubt that many of them were even what one would label as insane. It certainly ties in to one of her poems, a recent favorite of mine:

"Much Madness is divinest Sense--
To a discerning Eye--
Much Sense--the starkest Madness--
'Tis the Majority

In this, as All, prevail--
Assent--and you are sane--
Demur--you're straightway dangerous--
And handled with a Chain"

 

[gloombox]

I'm pretty up on psychiatry, and 'insanity' is really such an archaic term, I don't think it really needs or should have a definition.

But if I had to choose one, I'd say it's not being functional. As in, not being able to do much of anything, whether it's credible work as deemed by society, or art, or anything else, without tremendous pain.