 I've always been fascinated by so-called crazy people, that guy who's convinced that he's Napoleon reincarnate because his dog told him so, the serial killer who's literally obsessed with killing people, or the guy who shouts on the sidewalk every Sunday about how Jesus is actually the devil. I just can't help but listen and observe. Why do they believe what they believe? Are they delusional? Insane? What does insane even mean? Is their mind somehow broken? Or perhaps, what if they are the sane ones and I'm the insane one? Now I don't think they make compelling arguments, but perhaps that's because my mind is broken, not theirs. Is there any way I can prove otherwise? After worrying about these questions for years, I finally settled on a conclusion. As far as I can tell, there's only one objective standard for insanity, rejecting the laws of logic. All other standards are merely social conventions. Now I don't say this because I'm partial towards logical reasoning, I mean quite literally, if somebody denies the laws of identity and non-contradiction, their minds can be considered broken. To illustrate, take a stereotypical example of a crazy person, somebody who's convinced he's Napoleon because his dog told him so. Let's call him Joe. We know a few things about Joe. First of all, he holds a belief that virtually everybody in society considers faults, nobody believes that he's actually Napoleon reincarnate. And number two, he believes it because of a dubious methodology, i.e. his dog told him so. So is this enough information to determine whether or not Joe's mind is broken? I'd say it's certainly not, just because somebody believes something that nobody else believes doesn't mean that they're crazy, nor does it even mean that their beliefs are wrong. Plus, the majority of people arrive at their beliefs through a dubious methodology, whether it's blind faith or simply poor reasoning skills, that doesn't mean they're all insane. So we need more information. Imagine that Joe sincerely didn't know that believing what your dog tells you is a bad methodology for critical reasoning. So you explain why, and oh, he goes, gosh, I see your point of view, and he changes his mind. Now, if anything, Joe has demonstrated that he's a rational person. He's changed his mind because of a better argument. Now, at this time, imagine you explained the errors in his reasoning, but he wasn't persuaded. He told you no, no. The reason dogs are trustworthy is because of the arrangement of the stars. When they're aligned, then you can trust the animals. Now, this is a crummy counter-argument, but it's still not enough to say that Joe is insane. He could just be deeply confused about the nature of the world. You might say Joe is ignorant or closed-minded, but that's also true of the majority of people. I mean, how many people have tried to persuade stubborn old grandpa that his beliefs are false? If he doesn't budge, it seems peculiar to conclude that he's literally crazy. However, if we add one more detail, we might push Joe closer to insanity. Let's say that no amount of reasoned discourse would ever change his mind. So instead of putting forward poor arguments about the alignment of the stars, imagine Joe rejects the very principle of persuasion. He says there's literally no argument which could ever change my mind. To me, this gets closer to the edge of sanity. It puts him beyond the reaches of reason and rationality. However, it's at least conceivable that one can be sane and yet not be persuaded by rational discourse, and here's how. Consider a Buddhist who is convinced that the truth must be experienced, not communicated. Language to the Buddhist is usually a distraction, and therefore a monk might very reasonably reject the principle of persuasion altogether. Now, does that make him crazy? Probably not. Contrast these examples with an explicit dial of logic. Imagine a female friend comes up to you and says, I am pregnant. Naturally, you celebrate with her, and then she says, I am not pregnant. Well, what do you think? Well, maybe she's just pranked you. So you ask, wait a second, are you pregnant or are you not pregnant? She responds, I am pregnant and not pregnant. You can tell she isn't joking. She's serious. So you have a dialogue. You say, hang on, you can't be both pregnant and not pregnant. It's one or the other. So let's start over. Are you absolutely sure that it is true that you are pregnant? She says, yes. You respond, okay, well then it must be true that you aren't not pregnant if you are pregnant. If you're actually not pregnant, then you wouldn't be pregnant in the first place. And she says, no, I am both. It is true that I am pregnant, and it is equally true that I am not. It is true and false at the same time. Now, what would you conclude? You might start seriously thinking that your friend is nuts, her mind might be broken, but you decide to try one more time. You say, my friend, it is not possible for something to be true and false at the same time. If it's true that you're pregnant, then you must actually be pregnant. You can't be not pregnant and pregnant. What we mean by not pregnant is precisely the opposite. It is the negation of being pregnant. And she concludes, no, my friend, you're just using logic. I embrace the logical contradiction. I am large. I contain multitudes. Now, as far as I can tell, this person is objectively insane. It's not because of her conclusions per se. Anybody can have accidentally contradictory beliefs. It's because of her rejection of logic. It's the ultimate methodological mistake. By rejecting logic, she's not only beyond the reach of reason, she's beyond the reach of internal coherence. Not only will she never be persuaded by another argument, her own arguments aren't even internally consistent. They are explicitly irrational. They cannot make any sense. While the Buddhist, by contrast, might believe that the truth is more accurately understood in silent meditation, the insane person thinks there is no such thing as truth, an explicit self-contradiction. The Buddhist might think reason and logic will never reveal the experiential truth about the world. And the insane person thinks reason and logic are self-contradictory and so is the world. As I've written about before, logic underpins every belief, every methodology, and every thought. It is necessary and inescapable. Logic is necessary for comprehension of any sort, and it is what all arguments ultimately appeal to. Therefore, rejecting the rules of logic is identical with rejecting sanity. And by rejecting the rules of logic, I mean denying the self-evident truth that things are the way that they are, and they are not the way that they are not. If somebody cannot accept this, then their mind is not working correctly. They are insane. Because human actions follow directly from our beliefs about the world, you cannot predict how insane people will act. There's no sensibility. There's no consistency to their beliefs. So there's nothing holding them back from completely impulsive or erratic behavior. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that everybody who is insane is erratic, but I'm saying the potential is there. They aren't ultimately grounded. There's no belief holding them back from acting in accordance with an endless string of non-sequiturs. If I'm correct, then we do have an answer to the disturbing questions about our own sanity. How can we ever know if we're crazy? Don't crazy people think that they're sane precisely because they're crazy? Well, the answer is clear. Think about the laws of logic. If you accept that A is A, things are things, then you must have some measure of sanity. Granted, being sane doesn't mean that your conclusions about the world are right, but it does mean that your mind is fundamentally not broken. Plus, acknowledging the laws of logic gives you common ground with other people, regardless of how different two people's worldviews are. They can always point to the inescapable laws of logic as something that they agree on. So contrary to popular opinion, sanity is not determined by social convention. Even if all but one person rejected logical rules, that one person would still be completely justified in calling everybody else insane. Now that one person might not be very popular, but at least he would be right. of a more rational worldview. To read this article or to learn about my books, check out steve-patterson.com.