What Does 'Normal' Really Mean in Our Daily Lives?

[z4955]

what is normal?

 

[dekoi]

Normal is a general, accepted standard.

 

[gazzo]

but then there are different kinds of normality isn't there?

It's "normal" to go running in shortshorts and a singlet, but it's not "normal" to go to a bussiness meeting in them.

It was normal for people back in the middle ages to carry swords and speak old english, but not normal for people today?

hmm. situational norms? historical norms?

 

[3mpathy]

im guessing situational normals, since histroy can be thought of as a bunch of situations. "Normal is a general, accepted standard."+that humans think of for that perticular time/place.

 

[honestrosewater]

Overrated.

 

[tph666]

What is normal to you is not normal to me.Everybody has a diffrent look at normal.Its what ever is normal to you.You see kid from the inner city,i would say a kid on a farm would not think that's normal.normal is what you see as normal

 

[Artorius]

Culture establishes what is normal, and the forces that drive the concept of "normality" to an individual include, in order of most to least affect, the immediate family, the extended family, the community, and the society (although in many instances today, the media plays the most important role of all in transmitting "normal" ).

 

[MR]

average, according to your upbringing, RARELY synonymous with "good" or "proper"

BTW--what difference does it make? If it's just to define a word, a fun one to work on is "is"

 

[RAD4921]

Normal

There are different kinds of "normals" or what some call standards.

When referring to issues involving people, normals are standards set by the society one is lives in or abides to.

Normal for women in Arab conuntries is to keep covered and play a low keyed role in society.

Someone of "normal' weight is one who is not too fat or skinny. Many hundreds of years ago women who are considered obese by todays standards were considered beautiful then and were often portrayed in paintings.

Normal conditions in a spaceship in when everything appears to be running right. Normal weather conditions refer to average temperatures, rainfall ext..

the term "normal" is ften used very loosley since a lot of times it is subjective/

 

[scienceguy]

There is no such thing as normal. Normal is a term made and spread by the media to homogenize(?) society. We are plagued by this sense of normality. This quest of seeming normal is just a way for people to feel accepted and feel like part of a group.
My philosophy is not to let the media dictate your definition of normal. Each person should have their own definition of normal, like how many people have different definitions of god. What do you guys think?

 

[abitofnothingleft]

but then there are different kinds of normality isn't there?

It's "normal" to go running in shortshorts and a singlet, but it's not "normal" to go to a bussiness meeting in them.

It was normal for people back in the middle ages to carry swords and speak old english, but not normal for people today?

hmm. situational norms? historical norms?

the norms change as society changes...back then it was also normal to receive a flogging when you did something wrong...now it's illegal.

 

[AiA]

There is a norm

When you say what is normal every one responds with "whats normal now or to you isn't normal for me or back then." But there is a standard, normality of what a human is is not dependant on person or persons but man itself, and man (which is normal) is eternal, eternal in the sense of its essence. So when you ask "What is normal?" Normal is being a good human, being a good man.

 

[abitofnothingleft]

wait...okay then how where people back then...in the "old times" good when they whipped and tortured people...? are you saying that those people arent normal?

 

[AiA]

people who ripped and tortured were not normal, they were doing evil when they should of (in order to fulfil the norm of man) done good and imbrace those that they were torturing. It may of appeared to be normal back then, but just because they perceive what is right that doesn't actually make it right.

 

[abitofnothingleft]

okay but what they were doing back then, was normal to everyone else there...correct? it was the usual punishment for a crime, etc. right? so everyone thought it was normal...so it was normal back then...? right? so why are people thinking that things we do now are normal? maybe what we do now isn't really normal like we think it is...does that make sense?

 

[AiA]

Todays society is mostly governed by the media and is persuaded by media, hence what media is is "normal", today that is true, culturally that is true. But living by media standards is not normal cause its wrong, so back then, though they perceived it as "normal", it was wrong, and the norm of what a human is is not wrong, so then that isn't normal.

If you want to go more indepth and look at it sychologically, today allot of people do what they do cause its easier, people spend countless hours watching TV, this is "normal", they do this to escape reality, to escape using body and mind, this we know is wrong yet "normally" that is what happens. the "norm" today is that porn is ok, but is this really normal or morally and sychologically wrong, so to say this is "normal" is pretty much saying, this is what everyone is doing, so let's accept it and call it "normal", do you not see the fallacy in that.

 

[loseyourname]

I think you're confusing "right" with "normal." If the societal mean was the consistently do the wrong thing, then doing the wrong thing would be normal, but it would still be wrong.

 

[theriddler876]

normal is societies accepted standard at any given time, you also have diffrent levels of society/culture, like global and regional and even cities have diffrent standards thus what might be normal in one city might not be in another

 

[tc-]

Normal is what the bulk of people tries to be and the rest tries to avoid being.

 

[AiA]

Norm is not majority

You all mistaking normal for majority, cause the majority of people watches porn that doesn't make it "normal". All of you are perceiving normal as what is consistent in the time. Being a normal human means being normal to your essence. If you saw a four sided triangle, that isn't right, isn't "normal" because it goes against a triangles essence (please don't respond with a four sided triangle is a square, I'm giving an example) just like watching porn goes against a human beings essence, hence it isn't normal.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Normal is :
Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type

I guess the question should be normal to who ? These are the people constituting this norm so it has to be decided and generally in our sosieties the majority decides.
Therefore:
General normal at a cretain time and place is what most people consider acceptable at that time and place, so if most people are watching porn but don't discuss it openly, its therefore then normal to watch porn and not discuss it openly.

 

[AiA]

you are repeating yourself

"You all mistaking normal for majority, cause the majority of people watches porn that doesn't make it "normal". All of you are perceiving normal as what is consistent in the time. Being a normal human means being normal to your essence. If you saw a four sided triangle, that isn't right, isn't "normal" because it goes against a triangles essence (please don't respond with a four sided triangle is a square, I'm giving an example) just like watching porn goes against a human beings essence, hence it isn't normal."

just because everyone does somethin, it doesn't make it normal, normal is following and obeying your essence, that is to be a proper/normal human, to go against what it is to be human is not normal but insane, your definition of normal is liking saying "if every man is totally and completely insane, its normal and should be accepted as normal.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

"just because everyone does somethin, it doesn't make it normal, normal is following and obeying your essence, that is to be a proper/normal human, to go against what it is to be human is not normal but insane.

Then how is it that normal changes between ages, countries and religions. For great phisosophers like socrates and plato, having a little handy boy was normal and getting a hand in public as well so does "essence" determine "normal" or does "normal" determine "essence"

"your definition of normal is liking saying "if every man is totally and completely insane, its normal and should be accepted as normal.

And I believe this is correct

 

[AiA]

Norm makes essence or essence makes norm

Just because people say truth, essence etc differs doesn't mean truth, essence etc is different per philosopher or age, natural law was the same ten thousand years ago as it is now, but there has to be a standard of essence, essence is not contingent on man but man is contingent on essence, we don't decide what a human is what a human is decides what you are, a human.

Since there is a normal essence, there is a norm, anything that goes against normal is insane not normal. Insane (out of mind) is the opposite of norm, your just trying to justify what people do by saying whatever everyone at that time whants to do is "normal"

 

[RawThinkTank]

In human world normal is defined by evolution.

Some thing that can survive (succesfull) is considered normal.

For Example : Its normal for them to kill a live animal to eat. But that is outrageous for the animals. It all a matter of convinence and That too is considered as normal.

 

[AiA]

Normal is not evolution nor is it based on time, on an earlier post I used the example, ""your definition of normal is liking saying "if every man is totally and completely insane, its normal and should be accepted as normal." And some one responded with "thats correct," What if most of the world is completely insane but there is a group of sane people, or one sane person, would the norm still be sychotic or would it be what the 'sane' person inturpretes as normal?

 

[dekoi]

Some people are making the mistake, as AiA said somewhere, that the majority is the "normal". Perhaps this is true in a very vague way; but this sort of "norm" is a perverse idea of the concept of normality.

 

[honestrosewater]

AiA and dekoi,
Again, you are stating something as a fact which isn't a fact. People can define normal however they want to define normal. You do not have authority over the definition of normal.

Normal is not usually defined to mean right, wrong, good, or bad. It is you who is defining normal this way. Normal is usually defined with respect to some majority, whether it be a majority opinion, behavior, property, etc.

 

[AiA]

Answer me this, what makes a normal dog, one that acts in its nature, correct. What makes a normal tree, one that acts in its nature, sun flowers follow the sun, if they don't follow the sun, that is not a normal sun flower.
same thing applies to humans.

 

[honestrosewater]

Answer me this, what makes a normal dog, one that acts in its nature, correct. What makes a normal tree, one that acts in its nature, sun flowers follow the sun, if they don't follow the sun, that is not a normal sun flower.

But what does "acts in its nature" mean?

 

[dekoi]

But what does "acts in its nature" mean?

Acts in accordance with its physical and metaphysical purpose.

A sheep will eat because it is in its nature to eat (because if it does not, it will die). This is normal (the standard). Now it is good for the sheep to eat, because being alive [as you hopefully believe] is good; therefore, the normal is "good".

 

[AiA]

'acts in its nature' means exactly what it means, when a dog does what's in its nature it does what is natural for the dog to do, its instincts, the sun flowers nature is to follow sun, it doesn't follow sun, it doesn't follow its nature, its nature is normal, it is normal for the sun flower to follow the sun cause its its nature to follow the sun, if it didn't follow the sun it wouldn't be normal cause it wouldn't be in its nature.

 

[quantumdude]

'acts in its nature' means exactly what it means, when a dog does what's in its nature it does what is natural for the dog to do, its instincts,

But you have no way of knowing what the instincts of a dog are, apart from observing many, many dogs. It's not as though you have access to any particular dog's mental states and can directly perceive what it is thinking and what urges it has. And even if you could, you would only get the instinctual impetus of that particular dog, and you would still have to take a large sample.

So I'm afraid you are wrong when you say that "normal" is not determined by "majority". There is simply no other way to determine what is "normal". And yes, if most people watch porn, then watching porn is "normal" for the population under examination.

 

[quantumdude]

Acts in accordance with its physical and metaphysical purpose.

The first you cannot know without making many observations and an inductive generalization. The second you cannot know, period.

A sheep will eat because it is in its nature to eat (because if it does not, it will die). This is normal (the standard). Now it is good for the sheep to eat, because being alive [as you hopefully believe] is good; therefore, the normal is "good".

In this case, yes. But it's also "normal" for some animals to eat their young. What do you have to say about that?

What I don't understand is why some people feel the need to attach value judgments to norms. It seems to me to be a category error of the most basic kind. Norms can be determined objectively, but values cannot.

 

[AiA]

black widows eat their mates, that is part of their nature, that is normal, if a black widow didn't eat her mate that would be weird, not normal.

 

[quantumdude]

black widows eat their mates, that is part of their nature, that is normal, if a black widow didn't eat her mate that would be weird, not normal.

And again, people only know this because we have observed many, many instances of it. It is determined by the behavior of the majority.

 

[3mpathy]

a normal dog?... it must be one that smells

a normal dog would probably be interpreted my most ppl as a dog that acts like the average dog in its learning,movement, eating habits, etc... basically that would mean that the majority influences "normality".

 

[futb0l]

well - i learned in psychology that there are different types of normal, such as statistical, medical, situational, etc..

 

[TENYEARS]

Nothing is normal and everything is normal. People are concerned with normal for acceptance for achieving a higher state within themselves which will lead them towards their self actualization. It would seem that if there is a normal it would be the facet of all species to self actualize toward the end which is the complete genetic and energy make of a relative object. This is possibly the closest thing to an absolute normal one could expect. That all species tend to operate off of this.

Note: Negative or positve judgements on norms are derived with this nowly defined absolute. That is why organisms make them. I wonder how one can wonder of such things? Now I am in a box. LoL

 

[honestrosewater]

Nothing is normal and everything is normal.

Then what is not normal?

 

[TENYEARS]

Nothing and I do not refer to nothing as "Nothing". I mean in an absolute there is nothing in the history of the universe that is not normal. How could there be. LoL
Even mutations are normal. Cosmic rays which mutate cells that is normal. A variety of radiation blocked by the atmostphere that is normal and when it is not that is normal. For normal follows physics - "The Law" as Jesus put it. LoL That something outside of physics and it is not. Even my realization of God, visions and other things which I have experienced all come within the relm of the whole and a sublte physics not yet learned. The one normal is what I defined above for relative systems - find anyone who can deny such logic.

Although this realization makes us free one should note we are not beyond the law in this realization(I am at one with the law - That was also Jesus by the way), our system works in accordance with it which makes other facets of physics subtle systems come into play. The after affect of a child who has endless candy infront of them or a dog who has piles and piles of meat. Relative systems are relative and all perpetuated actions which include even thought have affects on the system... The nature of much of the action of the relative system in conserved. In other words the actions come with us... Not for ever but what ever it takes to complete the evoulution of that relative system.

 

[honestrosewater]

You seem to now be defining normal to mean anything that is possible, not possible, actual, not actual, anything, everything, and nothing.
You either see no problem in contradicting yourself or no need to use words consistently or both. Obviously, I can't determine which is the case.

 

[TENYEARS]

Yes, I knew this as I began posting it, but all I can say is it is what I understand out of my experiece to be true. There are two nothings one is as in a realative none The second is in terms of the absolute nothing and that is a different story. This sounds contradictory or maybe the same but it is not.

 

[honestrosewater]

Yes, I knew this as I began posting it, but all I can say is it is what I understand out of my experiece to be true. There are two nothings one is as in a realative none The second is in terms of the absolute nothing and that is a different story. This sounds contradictory or maybe the same but it is not.

Great, that makes sense. I understand what you mean by absolute nothing. The relative nothing is like a void or absence. Is that what you meant? Do you make the same (absolute and relative) distinction for "something"?

 

[TENYEARS]

Yes. There is also a perspective which occurs a type of seeing if you will, a vantage point from the realization of this "abolute nothing". This is what drive much of all that I have spoken on this forum. The misunderstandings occur for those who do not even have an idea of the perspective. One can rationalize ideas into a frame work without experiencing the reality. That is what Mr E did in some aspects of his definition of his framework of reality. I do think some of what he proclaimed was indeed a realization though even if he did not admit to it. I do not see how one could have made the leap into understanding it without it. You cannot see creation until you become that which creates. Jesus was put to death for such words. I am. To be or not to be. Yet that is the destiny to understand.

 

[honestrosewater]

Okay, looking back over your first definition of normal, it sounds kind of like something Canute said in the Meta-Metaphysical thread:

This is the point really, logic has to be transcended in order to attain certain knowledge. All knowledge gained though logic and reason is relative and uncertain. This is no more than Aristotle said when he wrote that 'true knowledge is identical with its object', or words to that effect. Thus knowledge is gained by 'becoming', not by formally logical reasoning.

I'm not sure I agree with all of that, but it sounds similar to what you were saying.?
I still don't see how this would tie back in with normal, unless you are saying that being normal is "becoming". That would be an unusual definition indeed.

 

[TENYEARS]

You are correct in equating the two explanations. Normal may also be everything at any moment for even if one is not in the realization of truth the lack of realization cannot alter the reality that we are part of the whole in which things are happening the way they should in accordance with the natural law which means all is normal.

I do not like to explain things because now after reading my foolish posts one can think one knows things and yet may not. I do not deny the possiblility but I cannot deny human nature which usually stops us short in these cases. That is why I like to post riddles which are born of the moment for certain individuals at certain times. In these moments there is possibility which may manifest itself in realization. These times do happen, but when we believe we understand something it stops us short of the goal. It is our minds tricking us into a false sense of reality. It will say wait here don't worry you don't need this. LoL It will be your worst and only enemy. There is only one way to defeat this enemy, you must face it and face it alone. Your ego is the most crafty enemy you will ever face, it is greater than all the conquers of past put together into a single entity.

 

[honestrosewater]

These times do happen, but when we believe we understand something it stops us short of the goal. It is our minds tricking us into a false sense of reality. It will say wait here don't worry you don't need this. LoL It will be your worst and only enemy.

I think ambiguity may be my worst and only enemy. When I said earlier that I understood what you meant by absolute nothing, I really meant that I understood absolute nothing as being contrasted with relative nothing and absolute something. I understand relative nothing and something, but not absolute nothing and something. They may even be the same thing for all I know.
I see that problem as arising from ambiguity or imprecision, not from understanding.

 

[RAD4921]

What is normal is not always "normal"

Drinking a glass of milk for breakfast is "normal". Sucking the tit of a cow is not "normal".

 

[TENYEARS]

It depends if you have a glass.

On absolute nothing let me ask you this. If you drop a book in normal circumstances(lol) it will fall to the ground. You are not spinning or in water or a host of other circumstances. Why does the book fall? Gravity is not an acceptable answer. Warped space time not an answer. These are just words. What is the circumstances which create this action? Take what is rightfully yours figure it out.