Mr. Tines wrote:
According to a USAn lawyer acquaintance of mine, speaking about 20 years ago, insanity was a purely legal term, denoting the ability to be ascribed guilt.
They used "competent" or "incompetent" as far back as the 1920s, according to some sources that I have read, and even if "insane" was a legal term, which I can believe, I mean that it was not a term used by the medical establishment. Certainly, it is not used officially today. If you don't believe me, get a shrink, and say the word to him, and watch him have apoplexy. :twisted:
But if one was given a similar limitation in, say, literature class--that is, if one had to go only by what was believed to be the author's view of what kind of people their characters were, without being allowed to argue one's own perspective upon encountering the work...
Even in lit. class you still have to be able to make an argument based on credible evidence, rather than the varieties of evidence (non-existent) that you favour. I can tell you right now, that in a first-year paper you might get away with this theory, but in a proper debate, in class, or a paper for later years, you'd receive a low grade, and a stern warning to not build castles in the sky.
If you effectively become a god, do you still have a god complex?
That's what I said, only shorter.