Musings: Normal vs. Abnormal

What is normal? It is too easy to just say normal is what we see to often. That really doesn't answer the question. At least not from a philosophical, let's base our morality/philosophy on this definition point of view. Do we define normal by what we know to be abnormal or abnormal by what we know to be normal? Or a mixture of the two, I guess? What are our expectations of something once we have determined if it's abnormal or normal? Do we say everything abnormal is bad and normal is good? If we don't then how do we treat it? In Generosity, a girl with 'abnormal' characteristics is first heralded then torn down for these genes which she did not choose and cannot control. Is it actually important to judge based on normal versus abnormal? If we're only talking about genetically based characteristics, then what does it matter? If Thassa is like that because of her genes, then how can she share anything for the good of humanity? If it's because of her and some choice she made or makes, then why would defining it as normal or abnormal even be a useful distinction? Perhaps the inherent-ness of normal and abnormal do not need to be fully genetically connected, which would leave the ability to find what makes a person one way or the other in their early life--a nurture related determinism instead of a nature related one. But it still doesn't seem the most helpful distinction. Even if at that level it can be helpful, in many cases the label of abnormal (or mental illness, or diseased) has a very detrimental effect on a person's life (whether because of their own response, or society's response to them, or both). This effect often seems bigger than the benefit of being able to put people into categories. Especially, if all we do as a society is go trigger-happy with the drugs, without actually teaching anyone how to manage their own lives without dependence on some pill, then how do these labels really help. Our whole society seems set up to help people fail, even as we have higher and higher incidences of 'mental illnesses.' Maybe the more important thing is to invest in finding how to help people help themselves--therapy, I'm saying--rather than in more drugs which take away symptoms. And then actually training people. But also, it seems like it is necessary to have a revolution in how we think about normal and abnormal. If we as a society can't get past the idea that someone with bipolar is disadvantaged, and ill, then we will never be able to use non-pill means of dealing with these diseases--because there are huge benefits to being somewhat bipolar, to being somewhat autistic, in what one can offer society. Many of the most influential and world-changing people in our history have been suggested to have had mental illnesses of one sort or another--and it allowed them to reach a much higher potential (perhaps even pushed them to) than the 'normal' human beings of the time.