Thanks for the response, Patrick... my responses here are in no way a personal attack: they are made in the spirit of pushing our understanding of that which is at stake a little further. Perhaps you can prod me back a little?

My posts were actually a bit tongue-in-cheek, but were really pointing at an issue that you have since made more clear: what is "sane"? I hope that I'm not being facetious by suggesting that the sanity of other people is generally measured by the conformity with one's own worldview: people who think or act "too" differently from you (or I, or "I", or "I", etc.) are crazy. Have you ever read "The Human Evasion" by Celia Green? I don't agree with everything she says, but the main thrust of her short book , which you can read it at:

www.theabsolute.net/minefiel...evas.html


…is that to be sane is to be intentionally completely oblivious to the reality of one's situation. To quote from chapter 2:

"Sanity may be described as the conscientious denial of reality. That is to say, the facts of the situation (apart from a few which are judged to be harmless) have no emotional impact to a sane mind.
For example, it is a salient feature of our position that we are in a state of total uncertainty. Possibly the universe started with a 'big bang' a few aeons ago, or perhaps something even more incredible happened. In any case, there is no reason known to us why everything should not stop existing at any moment. I realize that to my sane readers I shall appear to be making an empty academic point. That is precisely what is so remarkable about sanity.
The sane person prides himself on his ability to be unaffected by important facts, and interested in unimportant ones. He refers to this as having a sense of perspective, or keeping things 'in proportion'...."

It's interesting that in your discussion of masochism, you say "Typically these types of people would not have the desire to be sexually dominant, so would not, in reality, attempt to exercise such dominance, and so therefore the problem wouldn't actually occur." By "typically" do you mean "always," or "except in rare instances"? - for if it is that latter, your argument is significantly weakened (because "the problem" *would* occur). Some people, some of which I know personally, do like to play the roles of both masochist and sadist (and they seem to be living happy, productive lives, which makes them fairly normal by normal-person standards of "normal"). No fingernail ripping (!), but pain is involved.

"The categorical imperative works best when one has a clear idea of the way to live a good, happy life."

Ok, sure, but what's that, and does this method apply to everyone? Or is it relative to one's situation? (Yuk, relativism, but a fair question). Let's assume that the CI is the basis of my perspective on the fundamental requirements of living a "good, happy life." I want to apply it to everyone, as I would desire that others apply it to me. Fair enough. But, if I make use of it without their consent (or against their will [and please, don't try the "Then they're insane" position, as it is a little difficult to prove, and suggests that all who disagree with the CI are by definition, irrational]), then I am forcing something (my beliefs) on each person. This means that I am now required to have, as a maxim, the wish that other people force their beliefs on me against my will and/or without my consent. Wait, now I, the poster boy of Kantian rationality, sound a bit, well, unsound. Only a "crazy" person can be as rational as the CI demands.

"As for you asking me to define "the other" ... I suppose ideally it would include all sentient creatures; however, our need for survival sometimes must overrule that. There is always the fine line to walk between providing for one's survival and inflicting unnecessary damage. " Interesting: this suggests either (1) that it is rational to have a maxim that, by the demands of its nature, must be universally applied, but only apply it to the particulars that one wants - or has - to apply it to [=a non-universal universal: that would have made Kant a little upset, methinks]; or (2) the CI cannot work [i.e. be applied correctly], and is thus an irrational principle, as it cannot be used as anything more that a model for behaviour: a belief in the possibility of its actualization is a reification (of the model), and is thus irrational.

"We normally assume in applied ethics that we are discussing sane people." Ah, it's so nice to be part of the "in" group. Thank the Lord! (Oh wait, are people who believe in a god sane or not? Are people who use such an expression, but are not religious, more or less sane than those that use it in sincerity?). Help! My brain is hurting! (Ok, it's not, I'm just confused, and using an amusing expression to mean something that it does not mean. Of course).

Show me a sane person, and I will run as fast as I can in the other direction. Sanity is a contagious disease (in my opinion), and I'm trying to reduce the infection.

"<< Common sense is for commoners, hence its name. >>
Please, m'lord, I did not realize I was speaking to a nobleman. Praytell, sir, what title it is that you hold?"

---> :) Nietzsche’s sense of nobility did not (so far as I have understood) refer to being well moneyed: nobility is the name for a style of character, one that, amongst other things, does not act in the ways of the masses ("the herd" for Nietzsche, "das Man", in Heidegger) just because that’s the way something is (commonly) done. "Everyone else is doing X" doesn't justify doing X too (if it were, then people who started smoking say, 50 years ago, when it was very fashionable, and when the dangers of addiction and compromised health were far less well known than now, did so rationally. But is ignorance enough to make one's choice "rational"? Then the best route to rationality is to be as ignorant as possible. But, but,,,).

"[S]how me *how* the categorical imperative refutes itself." Well, I have tried... But, hey, maybe I'm crazy, so the nonconfiguration of my reality tunnel with yours might be irrelevant. I cannot be the judge of that.

"<< Rationality is completely irrational what at its most rational... >>
Uh, yeeeahh... I don't think you're quite onto any Zen stuff there, that's just poor grammar."
---> Sorry to be pedantic (although I bear no sorrow at all), but the grammar was not poor (the spelling, however, was atrocious! “what” should have read “when,” which seems obvious to me, but then I typed it, so who knows). I taught grammar for many years, and although I don't always check my posts as well as I ought (a little lazy sometimes, especially when typing to a friendly discussion forum), I can assure you that I made a grammatically correct sentence. Assuming that you recognized the spelling mistake – and what comes next is only relevant if you did, and may be ignored if you did not - may I venture a guess? I think that you perhaps wanted to say that my sentence was oxymoronic, or simply meaningless nonsense. But, of course...