Arbitrary Perceptions Of Insanity

All it takes for some people to suspect that someone else has fallen into insanity is a statement, behavior, or worldview that deviates from whatever random expectations the majority of those around them.  For those who think abnormality entails insanity, they would suppose that perhaps everyone is "insane" to some extent, no matter how small of an extent it is or no matter how rarely it comes out, but even perfect consistency on this matter would not make their stance rational.  Aside from rationality and moral uprightness (if there are moral obligations, that is, as their existence is not self-evident as that of logical truths is), "normality" not only does not matter, but it is also something that does not exist in any sort of way that transcends an arbitrary standard that amounts to nothing more than a social construct.

If people in all civilizations marry or eat, this is not the same as carrying out some "normal" approach to life.  The way in which they engage in these things varies immensely, and there is nothing normal about them because the very concept of normality is inherently contradictory.  Even aside from all historical information or accumulated social experience one might have, however, the logical fact remains that there is nothing objectively normal about a given manner of approaching something, and thus the concept of abnormality is only rational when contrasted with arbitrary ideas of normality.  It follows that abnormality, rightly understood in this way, cannot be insanity in itself.

Individuality is not insanity; irrationality and irrationality alone can be rightly equated with insanity, for anything else is nothing but an arbitrary perception of an assumed standard of normalcy that does not overlap with reason.  As long as individuality is not treated as an excuse for emotionalism and irrationalism, there is no such thing as a rational objection to a total emphasis on the truths of individualism over the shallow pursuit of social conformity for its own sake.  Even pleasing miscellaneous people for one's own benefit without any specific philosophical goal or awareness behind it is deeper than passive social conformity as a whole, for at least the former is not aimed at gratifying the masses out of assuming that they deserve personal respect by default!

Sheer egoism is closer to philosophical validity than looking to others in order to determine one's worldview and lifestyle.  One's own mind and its will and desires are immediately knowable and cannot be illusory, while the very existence of other people, and especially their minds, is completely up in the air beyond the limitations of sensory evidence.  At least a person's own thoughts and existence are infallibly provable for as long as their stream of consciousness continues.  On an epistemological level alone, individuality already stands above looking to others, not that deviating from social norms is "insane" in the first place.  Someone who is quick to overlook assumptions and logical fallacies and quick to promote suspicion of those willing to embrace individuality has their priorities backwards.  It is the person who disregards or denies reason who is insane and the person who has no concern for social norms that is sane.