6 ms·

Based on this article, there is absolutely no way to distinguish "Hypersanity" from just plain old insanity. Rationality is systematized winning. Unless your a

by pcstl 7y ago

Based on this article, there is absolutely no way to distinguish "Hypersanity" from just plain old insanity. Rationality is systematized winning. Unless your actions are benefitting yourself in some significant way, you cannot be considered rational. However, you cannot determine a person's inner drivers from the outside. Therefore, you cannot tell, based purely on their actions, whether they are winning (where winning is defined purely based on the individual's value system). Therefore, it is impossible to tell if an individual is "hypersane" or insane. The whole concept is meaningless and sounds like something people would think is "very deep" while stoned.

ltbarcly3 7y ago
> Based on this article, there is absolutely no way to distinguish "Hypersanity" from just plain old insanity. I don't see it this way at all. Plain old insanity can manifest as typical (or atypical) behavior combined with absurd, easily disprovable beliefs. Hypersanity as described leads to atypical behavior and worldview via a reasoned dismissal of widely accepted values, but nothing wrong on it's face or disprovable. For example, insanity is believing you are covered with spiders when you are not, hypersanity would be not feeling the need to disturb a harmless spider that is sitting on your nose. > Rationality is systematized winning. Unless your actions are benefitting yourself in some significant way, you cannot be considered rational. Now I see why you can't distinguish between insanity and hypersanity, you are conflating epistemology and ethics, and they just aren't the same thing. A 'true belief' is one which enables you to achieve some goal, but whether that goal is 'good' or desirable can only be determined when evaluated via some kind of ethical framework. For example, if I decide that the most important thing is to make sure the Canadian flag never touches the ground I will have a very different concept of what 'winning' is compared to someone who's goal is to make as much money as possible, and both of us will have a different concept of winning compared to someone who thinks the most important thing is to teach others that their widely held assumptions are not true or important, such as Diogenes.
- pcstl 7y ago
  The article mentions "conversing with beings which cannot be perceived by anyone but the person themselves" as a canonical example of hypersanity. I find that pretty comparable to "believing you are covered with spiders when you are not". >you are conflating epistemology and ethics The interpretation that the idea of hypersanity refers only to ethics is due to you and you alone, as the article states nothing to that end, so please do not make claims about my thought process that amount to "you are wrong because you did not arrive at the same conclusion as me". It is not only disingenuous, but also arrogant and short-sighted.
  - ltbarcly3 7y ago
    I'm not saying it refers only to ethics, I'm saying that you are conflating ethics and epistemology when you say that sanity==beneficial. Sanity refers to a combination of rationality and accurate enough perceptions of the factual state of the world. Rationality means able to make logical inferences, and when you talk about perceptions of the factual state of the world that is epistemology. A soldier who jumps on a grenade to save his friend isn't automatically insane, but it's certainly not beneficial to the soldier. You would probably counter by pointing out that 'beneficial' depends on what the soldier thinks is best, but that is ethics! So to say sanity (which is an epistemological concept) is the same as benefit (which can only be defined with reference to an ethical framework) are the same thing, you are directly conflating two very distinct things.
    - pcstl 7y ago
      Sanity does not mean necessarily "holding only true beliefs". I believe the issue here is we do not define sanity in the same way. Given your example of the soldier jumping on a grenade - clearly they value the life of their friend more than their own. Therefore, it is beneficial to them.
      - ltbarcly3 7y ago
        'true belief' is a philosophical term used in epistemology. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-pragmatic/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-pragmatic/ The question is 'what does it mean for something to be true', since Hume and Kant largely demolished any possibility that we can access 'objective truth'. http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/panova1.html http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/panova1.html "On these grounds, David Hume posits two systems of reality: the first—the reality of perceptions and memory, and the second—the reality of the mind. The mind is able, on the basis of its judgments, to compose a picture of the Universe in spite of the fact that it never perceives all its parts. But as the "first" and also the "second" system of reality exist only in our sense experience, they do not say anything certain about the nature of the external world, the existence of which even remains problematic." Regarding "true beliefs", you would probably agree with William James who held that "truth be defined in terms of utility", in other words, a belief is 'true' in so far as it is useful in accomplishing things, and another belief would be more true if it is more useful to accomplish that thing. As for the soldier, you are missing the point. Different people can disagree on what 'beneficial' means without either being wrong. What is 'beneficial for a person' basically means the same thing as 'good for a person', and there is no objective way to decide what is 'good'. Any time you say something is 'good' or something is 'better' than something else, you are assuming some kind of ethical framework.
mensetmanusman 7y ago
Unless their action involves measurable metrics to gauge happiness, etc.

by pcstl 7y ago

ltbarcly3 7y ago

> Based on this article, there is absolutely no way to distinguish "Hypersanity" from just plain old insanity. I don't see it this way at all. Plain old insanity can manifest as typical (or atypical) behavior combined with absurd, easily disprovable beliefs. Hypersanity as described leads to atypical behavior and worldview via a reasoned dismissal of widely accepted values, but nothing wrong on it's face or disprovable. For example, insanity is believing you are covered with spiders when you are not, hypersanity would be not feeling the need to disturb a harmless spider that is sitting on your nose. > Rationality is systematized winning. Unless your actions are benefitting yourself in some significant way, you cannot be considered rational. Now I see why you can't distinguish between insanity and hypersanity, you are conflating epistemology and ethics, and they just aren't the same thing. A 'true belief' is one which enables you to achieve some goal, but whether that goal is 'good' or desirable can only be determined when evaluated via some kind of ethical framework. For example, if I decide that the most important thing is to make sure the Canadian flag never touches the ground I will have a very different concept of what 'winning' is compared to someone who's goal is to make as much money as possible, and both of us will have a different concept of winning compared to someone who thinks the most important thing is to teach others that their widely held assumptions are not true or important, such as Diogenes.

pcstl 7y ago
The article mentions "conversing with beings which cannot be perceived by anyone but the person themselves" as a canonical example of hypersanity. I find that pretty comparable to "believing you are covered with spiders when you are not". >you are conflating epistemology and ethics The interpretation that the idea of hypersanity refers only to ethics is due to you and you alone, as the article states nothing to that end, so please do not make claims about my thought process that amount to "you are wrong because you did not arrive at the same conclusion as me". It is not only disingenuous, but also arrogant and short-sighted.
- ltbarcly3 7y ago
  I'm not saying it refers only to ethics, I'm saying that you are conflating ethics and epistemology when you say that sanity==beneficial. Sanity refers to a combination of rationality and accurate enough perceptions of the factual state of the world. Rationality means able to make logical inferences, and when you talk about perceptions of the factual state of the world that is epistemology. A soldier who jumps on a grenade to save his friend isn't automatically insane, but it's certainly not beneficial to the soldier. You would probably counter by pointing out that 'beneficial' depends on what the soldier thinks is best, but that is ethics! So to say sanity (which is an epistemological concept) is the same as benefit (which can only be defined with reference to an ethical framework) are the same thing, you are directly conflating two very distinct things.
  - pcstl 7y ago
    Sanity does not mean necessarily "holding only true beliefs". I believe the issue here is we do not define sanity in the same way. Given your example of the soldier jumping on a grenade - clearly they value the life of their friend more than their own. Therefore, it is beneficial to them.
    - ltbarcly3 7y ago
      'true belief' is a philosophical term used in epistemology. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-pragmatic/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-pragmatic/ The question is 'what does it mean for something to be true', since Hume and Kant largely demolished any possibility that we can access 'objective truth'. http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/panova1.html http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/panova1.html "On these grounds, David Hume posits two systems of reality: the first—the reality of perceptions and memory, and the second—the reality of the mind. The mind is able, on the basis of its judgments, to compose a picture of the Universe in spite of the fact that it never perceives all its parts. But as the "first" and also the "second" system of reality exist only in our sense experience, they do not say anything certain about the nature of the external world, the existence of which even remains problematic." Regarding "true beliefs", you would probably agree with William James who held that "truth be defined in terms of utility", in other words, a belief is 'true' in so far as it is useful in accomplishing things, and another belief would be more true if it is more useful to accomplish that thing. As for the soldier, you are missing the point. Different people can disagree on what 'beneficial' means without either being wrong. What is 'beneficial for a person' basically means the same thing as 'good for a person', and there is no objective way to decide what is 'good'. Any time you say something is 'good' or something is 'better' than something else, you are assuming some kind of ethical framework.

mensetmanusman 7y ago

Unless their action involves measurable metrics to gauge happiness, etc.