I guess to put it another way, it depends on one's idea of crazy and of normal. Is crazy defined from an objective point of view, or as something not belonging to social convention? Is normal something that is within the (objective?) definition of logic, or is it something that falls within social convention? Are the two terms opposites?
I think we have the dubious honor of living in an era when objective logic and rationalism are king. It has been so obvious in the past year the enormous cultural shift that is taking place as a result of our generation, having been taught to revere the ideal ideals (but not the practiced ideals) of the former generation. The former generation taught us that pollution is bad, that equality and environmentalism and evolution are good, to honor the homemade above the mass-produced, but only lately is all that coming to affect the larger world, as we become independent adults.
This is relevant to the argument at hand because we, having been taught by our culture at large, if not in the home, to prefer logic and reason to religion and dogma, begin to believe that there is such a thing as an objective point of view. Rather than lead us to believe that there is objectively a "crazy" and a "normal" (or multiples of each), that same objectivity, if it exists, would teach us that crazy and normal can only exist in relation to each other, in the context of our society at a given point in time. What was normal in the past and still lingers (religion), will probably seem crazy to future generations, if this "objective" craze continues. Likewise, what we consider logic, people who live and die by religion consider crazy.
But if it's all to be taken within social context, I believe that within the society I live - a spiritual and scientific university town - I am normal. But put into a ultra religious or scientific society I would probably be crazy.
I think we have the dubious honor of living in an era when objective logic and rationalism are king. It has been so obvious in the past year the enormous cultural shift that is taking place as a result of our generation, having been taught to revere the ideal ideals (but not the practiced ideals) of the former generation. The former generation taught us that pollution is bad, that equality and environmentalism and evolution are good, to honor the homemade above the mass-produced, but only lately is all that coming to affect the larger world, as we become independent adults.
This is relevant to the argument at hand because we, having been taught by our culture at large, if not in the home, to prefer logic and reason to religion and dogma, begin to believe that there is such a thing as an objective point of view. Rather than lead us to believe that there is objectively a "crazy" and a "normal" (or multiples of each), that same objectivity, if it exists, would teach us that crazy and normal can only exist in relation to each other, in the context of our society at a given point in time. What was normal in the past and still lingers (religion), will probably seem crazy to future generations, if this "objective" craze continues. Likewise, what we consider logic, people who live and die by religion consider crazy.
But if it's all to be taken within social context, I believe that within the society I live - a spiritual and scientific university town - I am normal. But put into a ultra religious or scientific society I would probably be crazy.
Reply
Leave a comment