Sanity, the one thing every person in this world strives to achieve, but they will never conquer, because behind the sad truth of sanity is, we are all a little insane. No, insane is not running around with your clothes off yelling “we don’t know”, insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly expecting something to change. Shown in this book are men who wake up every day, get in their planes and go to war. They all go up, and some of them return. Those that return, mourn for their losses but they tell themselves their fighting for a cause. Just to hold onto any last feeling of sanity that remains, but the same thing will happen tomorrow, and all the days that follow. They will wake up and go to war, their friends will die, they will become mentally …show more content…
scared, but they will continue to do this every day, now that’s truly insane. In the book Catch 22 there are a few themes, The Power of Bureaucracy, Losing Your Faith, and Being Unable to Avoid Death. I felt as if there was an even bigger theme that tied all three of these themes together, Sanity vs Insanity. Time and time again reading Catch 22 would make you feel as if what the characters were doing in the story was sane, later to learn it was utterly insane.
We come across this idea of Sanity vs Insanity in chapter 5 when Yossarian is having a conversation with Orr. “Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn’t, but if he was sane he would have to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn’t have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to” (Heller, Joseph. "5." Catch 22. Trondhjem: J.W. Cappelens Forlag, 1994. Pg 55). This was a true “Catch 22”. As I said before insanity is doing something repeatedly expecting change. In this part of the book, the repeated event is flying missions. If Orr continues to fly the missions he would fall under the category of insane, if he broke away from this trend and stopped flying missions, he would be considered sane. This is where the power of bureaucracy plays a role in our major theme of Sanity vs Insanity. The lives of those in Yossarian’s squadron are not controlled by their own decisions, the bureaucracy controls them. This is shown when they are forced to keep flying combat missions well after they have been told that the Allies have won the war. The bureaucracy shuts out any one who tries to reason with them logically. For example, Major Major, will allow …show more content…
anyone to visit his office, but only when he is not present. Also, Doc Daneeka wont ground Yossarian for insanity because as Orr said in chapter 5, if you ask to be grounded due to insanity, then your desire to be grounded would be viewed as sane, and you would be forced to fly more missions. Now if insanity is a repeated action expecting change, and you go to church every Sunday and say grace before every meal, is your belief in god insane? Now throughout Catch 22 you see as all the characters seem to grow increasingly more insane. In this instance, the characters begin to lose all faith in religion. Even the Chaplain, by the end of the book, begins to doubt his own faith in god. Now, Yossarian is an atheist as we learn in his discussion with Scheisskopf’s wife on thanksgiving. “Haven’t you got anything humorous that stays away from waters and valleys and God? I’d like to keep away from the subject of religion altogether if we can.” The chaplain was apologetic. “I’m sorry, sir, but I’m afraid all the prayers I know are rather somber in tone and make at least some passing reference to God.” “Then let’s get some new ones.” (Heller, Joseph. "19." Catch 22. Trondhjem: J.W. Cappelens Forlag, 1994. Pg 192). Now most people would say losing your faith god is truly insane. God created this world and the results of war and death are due to the cause of humans on this amazing world God has created for us. Even though praying for god every day expecting change would be defined as insane. Even though Yossarian doesn’t believe in god, he does believe in his morals. This proves Yossarian to be more sane than those who believe in god. Now how does this make sense? Well the belief in god, means that you follow the morals god has created for us. Blindly following morals is insane, as we found out with the squadron following orders from their bureaucracy. Now losing belief in god, means that each man must create their own morals. Now as we know Yossarian is an atheist and creates his own set of morals. At the end of the book Yossarian walks away from the army rather than to betray his squadron. Now morals can also cause conflict. Yossarian’s morals causes another “Catch 22” or as I would call it, Sanity vs Insanity. Yossarian began to be viewed as a hero. Yossarian has the idea of trying to preserve life. Although he doesn’t plan to go about this as would the typical “hero”. Your typical hero would risk their lives at all costs to save others, Yossarian believes in a more selfish view of heroism. He plans on self-preservation, saving his own life from this corrupted bureaucratic military. Yossarian realizes the battle for self-preservation conflicts with his moral values. His determination to save his own life conflicts with all the people inside of his squadron whom he cares deeply about. He is distraught by all their deaths especially the death of Snowden, which makes Yossarian realize that he is just as destructible as Snowden was. “One of the things [Yossarian] wanted to start screaming about was the surgeon’s knife that was almost certain to be waiting for him and everyone else who lived long enough to die. He wondered often how he would ever recognize the first chill, flush, twinge, ache, belch, sneeze, stain, lethargy, vocal slip, loss of balance or lapse of memory that would signal the inevitable beginning of the inevitable end” (Heller, Joseph. "17." Catch 22. Trondhjem: J.W. Cappelens Forlag, 1994. Pg 176). Now at the end of the book Yossarian has a major conflict with his morals. Self-preservation is something any sane person would want. Everyone wants to protect themselves from death, but when your selfish outlook means watching people you care about lose their lives, now that’s just insane. Sanity vs Insanity, the bureaucracy forcing men to fly missions for illogical reasons is insane, losing your faith in your religion and creating your own morals leads to sanity, it’s sane to believe in self-preservation, protecting yourself.
It’s also insane to go against your moral values, protecting those inside your squadron. Catch 22, a term that sounds sane, until you begin to break it down and analyze it, then it becomes clear that Catch 22 is, insane. "When I look up, I see people cashing in. I don't see heaven, or saints or angels. I see people cashing in on every decent impulse and human tragedy” (Heller, Joseph. "42." Catch 22. Trondhjem: J.W. Cappelens Forlag, 1994. Pg
445).
For example, there is a story of why a character named Appleby would put apples in his cheeks so he could look like had “apple cheeks”. While Appleby believes that putting apples in his cheeks is completely logical, to the his squadron as well as the audience, it’s seen as insane and hilarious. Heller blurs the line between sanity and insanity in this novel. These types of illogical actions portrayed in the novel are really parallel to the lack of logic in the military. All of the members of the squadron struggle with the fact that the number of completed missions required is constantly raised in order to trap them in this war. The actions of the military are satirized by Heller through comparison showing that they are no better than the silly actions of characters like Appleby. Heller’s point is that the military is an overbearing bureaucracy that does not act on intelligence but rather illogical force. However, it is a system so powerful that few of the characters in the novel could escape
“Every war is everyone’s war”... war will bring out the worst in even the strongest and kindest people. The book tells about how ones greed for something can destroy everything for both people and animals leaving them broken beyond repair, leaving them only with questions… Will they ever see their family again? Will they ever experience what it’s like to
Another unique aspect to this book is the constant change in point of view. This change in point of view emphasizes the disorder associated with war. At some points during the book, it is a first person point of view, and at other times it changes to an outside third person point of view. In the first chapter of the book, “The Things They Carried,” O’Brien writes, “The things they carried were largely determined by necessity (2).
According to the Indian Times, madness is the rule in warfare (Hebert). The madness causes a person to struggle with experiences while in the war. In “How to Tell a True War Story”, the madness of the war caused the soldiers to react to certain situations within the environment differently. Tim O’Brien’s goal with the story “How to Tell a True War Story” is to shed light on the madness the soldiers face while in the war. Tim O’Brien tells the true story of Rat experiences of the war changing his life.
There is a fine line between sanity and insanity, a line that can be crossed or purposefully avoided. The books The Things They Carried and Slaughterhouse-Five both explore the space around this line as their characters confront war. While O’Brien and Vonnegut both use repetition to emphasize acceptance of fate, their characters’ psychological and internal responses to war differ significantly. In The Things They Carried, the narrator and Norman Bowker carry guilt as evidence of sanity. In Slaughterhouse-Five, Billy Pilgrim and the innkeepers carry on with life in order to perpetuate sanity. Both authors develop a distinct theme of responding in the face of the insanity of war.
The sickness of insanity stems from external forces and stimuli, ever-present in our world, weighing heavily on the psychological, neurological, and cognitive parts of our mind. It can drive one to madness through its relentless, biased, and poisoned view of the world, creating a dichotomy between what is real and imagined. It is a defense mechanism that allows one to suffer the harms of injustice, prejudice, and discrimination, all at the expense of one’s physical and mental faculties.
Catch-22 is one of the most poorly constructed, and distasteful books I’ve ever read. It’s order of events, or lack of order, becomes clear after the very first chapter. In fact “It doesn’t even seem to have been written; instead it gives the impression of having been shouted onto paper” (Stern 50). By the middle of the book it seems every character in the book has lost any sense of morality they may have seemed to have. The novel “gasps for want of craft and sensibility” (Stern 50).
Much of my skepticism over the insanity defense is how this act of crime has been shifted from a medical condition to coming under legal governance. The word "insane" is now a legal term. A nuerological illness described by doctors and psychiatrists to a jury may explain a person's reason and behavior. It however seldom excuses it. The most widely known rule in...
Insanity, by its dictionary definition, is the derangement of the mind. (Dictionary.com) It is used in everyday context, when people say “You are insane for not doing your homework” or “ That traffic getting out of the game was insane last night!”. However the real definition, written by Columbia University Press states that “The term insanity is used chiefly in criminal law, to denote mental aberrations of defects that may relieve a person from the legal consequences of his or her acts” (Columbia University, Press). This issue is very important because many people try to get out of their true consequences of their actions, and by using this plea, sometimes they get away with it. The Insanity Plea has been used again and again in the US courts, but it should be disproved because of the true legal definition, because many people try to fake insanity, and because of how the social concept of insanity is different than the actual mental illness.
The pathway through war by use of anecdotes and character perception traces the arduous efforts of Yossarian to avoid being victimized by circumstance, in this instance Catch-22, a formidable, unwritten loophole found in basically every written law. “There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to” (Heller 46). The entirety of Catch-22 is hypocritical. Due to Catch-22, justice is never exacted, the innocents become the victims, and the squadron that Yossarian is a member of has no choice when it comes to flying over twice the amount of missions given by the Air Force Code. Run ragged due to Catch-22, Yossarian becomes the witness to the horrendous slaughter of his crew, as well as the destruction of those closest to him. Yossarian’s fear of death is highly intensified, and eventually gets to be so much that he
Both legal and mental health professionals have long struggled to establish a clear and acceptable definition of insanity. Insanity is a legal term, not a psychological or medical one. The Sarasons prefer to use the term “maladaptive behavior” instead of insane or insanity. Maladaptive behavior is, “behavior that deals inadequately with a situation, especially one that is stressful” (5). Adaptation is the way people balance what they do and want to do, and what the environment/community requires of them. Successful adaptation depends on a person’s stress (situations that impose demands on him or her), vulnerability (likelihood of a maladaptive response), and coping skills (techniques that help him or her deal with difficulties/stress) (5). Consider the recent school shootings as an
One who is righteous, pure, and ethical obtains a solid moral compass. A lack of morality in an individual results in insanity. This is shown in Timothy Findley’s The Wars; the war corrupts individual’s integrity which ultimately leads to their insanity. Robert Ross and Rodwell depict lunacy as war demoralizes them. As individuals receive commands that violate their virtues, as a repercussion a person will become irrational.
Insanity is a legal, not a medical definition. This makes mental illness and insanity correlate with each other, only some mental illnesses are consider as inanity. Insanity includes not only the mental, illness but also mental deficiencies. There are major problems in exactly how to apply a medical theory to legal matters. Every crime involves a physical and mental act and the non-physical cause of behavior. The mens rea is the mental element that would be required for a crime, if it is absent it excuses the criminal from criminal responsibility...
... could not help themselves, they were not going to be helped. If struggle were encountered, men had personalized ways to reconnect with the real world, and if a tragedy were encountered which affected the entire company, they also found a combined way to cope with this pressure. The priorities of men during the war shifted greatly toward emotional connections to people and events other than the war, and it was these connections that helped them survive and return home. Coping with the stress and burden of war is not an easy task for anyone, yet in The Things they Carried, O'Brien depicts men dealing and coping as much as they can, using only their primeval resources. They learn how to cope with the barest necessities in life, and they learn how to make use of the smallest opportunities to obtain the most relief and joy from every moment in life.
The basis of insanity is upon M’Nagten Rules (1843) which set forward the principles of a defence when the “defendant had a defect of reason” or a “disease of the mind” and was not able to understand the nature of the act they did or did not know what they were doing was wrong. These three conditions must be proved for the defence of insanity to become available. Insanity is available for the all cases that require mens rea except for strict liability cases.