On insanity as it relates to the definition of man as a rational being

[jsiyumbu]

By defining man as a rational being and whilst bearing in mind the principle of excluded middle, does the aforementioned definition of man include an insane individual?

[JohnDamian]

All rational beings have prior volition essentially; all object formation occurs in the intellect; and is then subjected to the volition of rationality. An insane person does not lack volition; but instead has a disturbed object formation of the intellect; and the rationality of their being is not impugned; as it conforms only to the relationship between the object formation and the volition; and not to the relationship between the world and the object formation.

[Charlemagne II]

By defining man as a rational being and whilst bearing in mind the principle of excluded middle, does the aforementioned definition of man include an insane individual?

If by rational you mean reasoning, I suppose an insane person is a rational being. He reasons, but his reasoning is radically opposed to the reasoning of a sane person.

It is even possible that you might have lunatics (insane reasoners) running the asylum, as our government does in the United States today.

[Katholish]

The definition of man as a rational animal includes all members of the species. Rational describes the nature of man and the definition admits of instances in which his actual ability to exercise his reason might be impaired or wholely non-existent.

Even in utero when sense organs and a brain has not even formed, a fetus is still considered part of the human species and meets the definition of rational animal even though it does not have the capacity to reason... yet. It's nature is still the nature of a thing which is rational. Insanity is an impairment of proper powers, but does not change a person's nature.

[Adeodatus]

The matter must be adequate to the form. Inadequate matter does not mean that the form is not possessed, but that the full exercise of its powers is rendered impossible.

The form is possessed if the subject in question is a homo sapiens. That formally entails rationality. What actually obtains may be delimited by material impediments.

It is similar to when a man has an amputated leg. Homo sapiens is a bipedal animal. The amputee is still formally a biped; if he were not, either homo sapiens has changed or he is no longer a homo sapiens. Neither of these is the case; he would be a biped if his matter were fully adequate to his form, but it is not.

The same applies to head trauma, such as the famous case of Phineas Gage who had the iron tamping bar blown straight through his cranium (!) in a demolition accident. He experienced certain cognitive disorders as a result. The essence of reason did not change in the man, nor did he lose his essence as a man. But the form homo sapiens is a composite form, which requires adequate instantiation in matter.

[MindOverMatter2]

Originally Posted by Charlemagne II

[i]

It is even possible that you might have lunatics (insane reasoners) running the asylum, as our government does in the United States today.

What do you mean?