trying to prove thier thoughts or solve things that are abstract and of
uncommon thoughts.
> I'd say yes.. since it is a tough thing to feel that you are on the
> right track. But your ideas are highly contested. Either by religious
ideals of the era. Or "hard-nosed" and highly accepted theories.Especially
those based upon previous superstitions. >
Yes, it is, but it is also a tough thing to feel as though you can never
> measure up due to lacking intelligence.
To prevent a highly creative thinker from "burnout". I guess the outlets for
"venting" thier very active imaginations is needed. Also, some
rationalitation to "chill out". If there theories are bound by a dead end
series of "why" questions. They need to walk away and maybe the answer might
come by way of accident. By some totally unrelated event.
>
> Did you ever think that the highly intelligent have breakdowns also,
because perhaps they see the world for what it really is? They might analyze
things a lot more than others and may see the negativity in the world more
than an "average" person.
My job requires a lot of imagination and sometimes a lot of trial and error.
Though not a "genius" type of job. It is necessary to walk away.Ease up on
concentration and come back to tackle the problem.I imagine that some
geniuses are under pressure from either educational institutes or employers.
Though, I heard of employers that allowed thier geniuses to dress as they
felt comfortable and imagine at thier own pace.Other geniuses are just out
there creating and staying as hermits.
>
Back to my comment about the world being flat. According to people in that
time frame. They were either called herectics or "bonkers" (I don't think
that the slang "bonkers" existed then.)
> But were they found to be "legally" insane?
Also, granted that legally insane is based upon certain criteria. Such as
incompetency and total unawareness that thier actions have certain impact
upon other factors in life.
> In regards to the person that killed and ate a person. Claiming
> nutritional value as thier reason. It would definately be atrocious in my
eyes. But as to insanity. It would be based upon the true underlying motives
that the canibal had. I believe that canibalism leads to a disease in humans.
Similar to mad cow disease. As to why. I really don't
> know.
I believe that if this man killed some person, didn't try to conceal his
actions, then started to eat this person openly, this country would indeed
find him to be legally insane. Is this act something the "reasonable" man
would do? Definitely NOT (I say this leaving the nutrition comment out of
the scenario at this time.)
> It might be that there is a God and he doesn't want cows to eat flesh or
people to eat people. But mad cow disease and its canibal cousin both lead to
madness. But is madness the same thing as insanity?
> Reflecting on Tara's comment about the person killing thier spouse and
claiming that they were killing the antichrist. I don't know if that was a
result of "theocratic pollution","bad drugs" or "enlightenment from the
angels". I guess the person would have to analyzed and questioned in detail
about thier reasonings for thier actions. I'd classify the person as insane.
But would he legally be insane?
>
If this person did this and claimed this was done because of drugs, he
would most likely NOT be found to be legally insane, as I believe drugs are
not allowed in a court of law to be a reason to present a verdict of insanity.