What counts as "normal" or "healthy"?

Solaris said:You really went deep there. 😁

So, what was that initial state you're talking about, and what exactly makes this current situation so messed up? 😕

That’s my philosophical take on it, anyway. 😛

In the beginning, everything was perfect—purely ideal. Everyone was happy and content. 🙂

But then, bit by bit, things started to shift. 😕

And here we are, born into this chaotic mess of irrationality, prejudice, envy, hatred, greed, and all the other nonsense that just doesn't feel right. 🙂

But hey, look on the bright side. Things will get back to how they used to be—maybe even better. 🙂

We just have to hang in there long enough to see it happen. 😎

Solaris said:You've said quite a bit there. 😁

What exactly was that initial state, and what makes this current one "abnormal"? 😕

Can I jump in for a second?

Sure, I can.

I agree with him on one point.

The very first step.

It’s only natural for the beginning to be normal.
Healthy.

Otherwise, you're just rushing toward the end...

What comes after can go either way.
Healthy or sick.

The end is perfectly normal, really. Expected.
So, healthy.

Just because a sickness seems to speed up the end doesn't mean it isn't healthy.
Illness can be a healthy thing.

Healthily sick... Lala knows that.

And people being afraid of change? That's not exactly healthy.
Being healthily sick is possible. It actually happens.

Change itself is healthy.
Everything else is just a swamp.

And even swamps change, don't they?

krshcanin said:And just like that, we’re born into this mess—a world built on nonsense, prejudice, envy, hatred, greed, and everything else that just isn't right. 🙂
😎

Pretty standard, really.

Solaris said:Can anyone actually provide a single, universal definition for what counts as "normal" or "healthy"?

I don't think so...😁 😛

There’s just no such thing as a universal standard...

Blue Eyes said:The concept isn't universal...

How can you say that?

There's such a thing as a universal idiot.

Though, why shouldn't I, just this once, be talking about myself?

It would probably make things easier for everyone...

krshcanin said:That’s my philosophical take on it.😛

In the beginning, everything was flawless. Pure perfection. Everyone was content, happy, and at peace. 🙂

But then, slowly but surely, things started to shift. 😕

And just like that, we found ourselves dropped into this chaotic mess—a world fueled by irrationality, prejudice, envy, hatred, greed, and all sorts of nonsense. 🙂

But hey, there's a silver lining. Things will go back to how they used to be, and honestly, they’ll probably be even better. 🙂

We just have to hang in there long enough to see it happen. 😎

How can you possibly know what it was like at the start, and what exactly do you consider to be "the beginning"?

Blue Eyes said:How can you claim to know how it all started, or even decide what counts as the beginning?

In the beginning, there was Anderlone.

And he said—that is, Anderlone said:

Let there be a forum!

And there was a forum.

To get straight to the point, plenty of people were acting like they knew everything. Anderlone wasn't a fan of that...

So, he said—Anderlone said:
Let there be a flood!!

And there was a flood.

First one.
Then another.
Then a third, the biggest one yet.

So, some people argued:
Just reset everything to the way we wanted it. We made too many mistakes.
But then Anderlone ends up looking like the bad guy just because things aren't working anymore.

Not everyone showed up yesterday or the day before, though.
Some weren't here at the very start, but they've been around for a long time.

So they said, let's write like we used to, but with our memories intact.
We might not know everything, but we know what we're doing.

Anyway, spare me if you actually know Ispodlončić...

If that isn't enough for you, you'll get more.
Just like he did, back when it happened.
That is, Anderlone.

Let me try to wrap my head around what "normal" and "healthy" actually look like based on our current social standards and "values"... To me, being normal and healthy is basically everything that Rachel Gonzalez7 isn't...

Blue Eyes said:Just trying to give a rough definition of what's considered normal and healthy based on social standards and "values." Basically, being normal and healthy is the exact opposite of how Rachel Gonzalez7 operates...

Completely normal.

Thanks, philosophy.

Honestly, it would be standard procedure to report your post for using ad hominem attacks.

But who am I even supposed to report it to?

The moderator?
Anderlone?

Doesn't matter. I'll just file it away in my own memory...
an elephantine one.

Come on, come on... she basically went out of her way to tell you you're crazy. There’s something almost polite about it when someone puts that much effort into insulting you. It’s a lot easier to just bark things directly at people like I do. 😁

But as far as my take on you goes, I definitely don't see you the way PBE does.

I guess we could say that what's considered "normal" or "healthy" really just boils down to how an individual perceives it... 😁

It is fundamentally irrational to label anything that deviates from the statistical mean as "abnormal"...
In truth, an outlier can be just as extreme in its excellence as it is in its deficiency...
Yet, we seem biologically wired to instinctively attach the word "abnormal" to things we perceive as negative, or even pathological...

Take, for instance, how often we hear someone say, "that child just isn't normal"...
Our immediate impulse is to worry, assuming there must be some developmental flaw or issue at play. Very few people would pause to consider that the child might actually be a once-in-a-generation genius... though I suppose those who *do* make that connection are considered "abnormal" themselves...

Big Al

Apple said:How can you really claim to know what the beginning looked like, or even decide where that starting point actually was?

Some of life's deepest truths can only be reached through faith. Faith is pure energy.

Lisa Foster said:There are certain fundamental truths in this life that can only be grasped through faith. Faith isn't just a concept; it's pure energy.

Faith is essentially E=mc²

DEBEL K.

...the issue with this definition, much like so many others, is just how subjective it really is...

Why would it be subjective?

It should just be what’s natural, you know... whatever nature intended in the first place.
Doesn't have to be common or some kind of average standard either.

😕

Sure, but nobody really sticks to that definition anyway. It’s never that simple. Everyone perceives nature through their own lens, which means they just define what’s "normal" or "healthy" based on whatever their own twisted pattern happens to be.

Blue Eyes said:I’ll try to give a rough definition of what's considered healthy and normal by using societal standards and "values"... Essentially, being normal and healthy means being the complete opposite of Satir and Kusch...

Personally, I'd argue that being normal and healthy is actually perfectly aligned with Satir and Kusch...