Anyway I don't like to use right/wrong and good/bad: who stands as judge? Where is this so-called objective judgment? It does not even exist in science: the scientist who studies sub-atomic phenomena modifies them (with detection instruments) the moment he studies them. Objectivity is an illusion.
GBAtemp.net - The Independent Video Game Community
KleinesSinchen
"Who stands as judge?" ← That is exactly the question is wanted to ask. I get the feeling that the >insane< stamp gets used in a thoughtless way. Somebody not following the majority → wrong, bad, lunatic.
I have the feeling, that so-called normal people often show more questionable behavior than "insane" people. This is why I wrote the above statement down.
But we won't come to an agreement on:
I have the feeling, that so-called normal people often show more questionable behavior than "insane" people. This is why I wrote the above statement down.
But we won't come to an agreement on:
KleinesSinchen
"sub-atomic phenomena modifies them[…]Objectivity is an illusion."
And at the place of the hard facts (location, speed) come probabilities… science is pretty good at being objective – even if it is naming problems that can't be solved and why they can't be solved. In math, the answer can also be a proof that a solution doesn't exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem
And at the place of the hard facts (location, speed) come probabilities… science is pretty good at being objective – even if it is naming problems that can't be solved and why they can't be solved. In math, the answer can also be a proof that a solution doesn't exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem
AncientBoi
Sounds like me. But then again, people say I'm delusional. 
Nikokaro
"Insane stamp...Somebody not following the majority → wrong, bad, lunatic."
Completely agree.
"so-called normal people often show more questionable behavior than "insane" people"
Ditto, as above. I specify that even if science is not totally objective, it must continue to seek it,although unattainable.
Completely agree.
"so-called normal people often show more questionable behavior than "insane" people"
Ditto, as above. I specify that even if science is not totally objective, it must continue to seek it,although unattainable.
Nikokaro
@AncientBoi I laughed because I considered it a joke, and not an actual fact (I wouldn't believe it anyway 
).
).
C
Creamu
What Foucault calls "disciplinary power" aims to use bodies' skills as effectively as possible. The more useful the body becomes, the more obedient it also has to become. The purpose of this is not only to use the bodies' skills, but also prevent these skills from being used to revolt against the power.
C
Creamu
Sciences such as psychiatry, biology, medicine, economy, psychoanalysis, psychology, sociology, ethnology, pedagogy and criminology have all categorized behaviors as rational, irrational, normal, abnormal, human, inhuman, etc. By doing so, they have all created various types of subjectivity and norms, which are then internalized by people as "truths".
C
Creamu
People have then adapted their behavior to get closer to what these sciences has labeled as "normal". For example, Foucault claims that psychological observation/surveillance and psychological discourses has created a type of psychology-centered subjectivity, which has led to people considering unhappiness a fault in their psychology rather than in society.
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
SenorED:
jkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ryWgzW4RLI&ab_channel=MarioBendor'sComentario
kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk -
-
-
-
-
-
I would rather say that so-called crazy people are considered "wrong", not the opposite.
Then I would not use common sense to measure a person's sanity (not normality)...
Reactions: KleinesSinchen