|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:36 pm
Some people think that a person believing that he or she is and once a dragon is a sign of mental illness but then believe in such things as an angel picking Mohammud to preach, or that the Bible is the word of God despite its sexism, use of slavery, and it's other contradictions. Even John Smith's story of the angel, golden plates, and Jews in America 2000 years ago is believed. If such religious leaders were instead born around our time period and said such things, they'd be marked as mentally ill! What keeps the belief is a combination of conditioning, the want to belong, the want of a guide in life and something to believe in.
Belief can't be a mental illness since that's what got the human race to this point. If the activists, inventors, scientists, leaders, teachers, etc didn't believe in themselves and their ideas then we wouldn't be this far.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 7:23 am
There is that double standard that Chifee points out. Unfortunate, but true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 5:35 pm
If I may play Devil's advocate for a moment.
Where is the line?
How out there does a belief have to be for it to be alright to say "You are crazy"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 7:25 pm
Dunno how much you read, but that was sort of the big point. It seems that the "line" is relative to the third party perspective that defines it. There is no absolute. Perhaps there is no absolute truth at all that we as humans can unrefutably KNOW.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 7:46 pm
GameAngel64 Dunno how much you read, but that was sort of the big point. It seems that the "line" is relative to the third party perspective that defines it. There is no absolute. Perhaps there is no absolute truth at all that we as humans can unrefutably KNOW. Let me rephrase then. What is your line?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 7:53 pm
See, I don't know if I have a one size fits all standard myself - there's always gonna be some gray area and each situation is going to be judged separately. Generally, if you aren't hurting anyone, or yourself, then that's fine with me. But that's where the gray area comes in. What counts as "hurting" yourself or someone else?
As far as dragon kid goes, the fact that he is perceiving invisible body parts that furthermore are subject to feelings of PAIN says to me that something is not right here. If everything checks out in a physical, then I'd have to say that something is psychologically wrong, ESPECIALLY since he feels pain - means that these dragon body parts are definitely not "symbolic."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 10:44 am
Kraggus Doomhammer GameAngel64 Dunno how much you read, but that was sort of the big point. It seems that the "line" is relative to the third party perspective that defines it. There is no absolute. Perhaps there is no absolute truth at all that we as humans can unrefutably KNOW. Let me rephrase then. What is your line? Personally? I don't draw the line based on the belief itself. As someone with a psych background, I tend to draw that line based on the effect of the belief with regards to self-harm, other-harm, or environmental harm. I couldn't care less if a person thinks they're the incarnation of Buddah if that belief has no functionally negative impacts on these three domains. I may not believe their claim, but it would be rather arrogant of me to demand they change their belief simply because *I* think it's nonsense. Who cares what *I* think... I'm just one person. Just like everyone else. Each to their own path of living and love.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 12:57 pm
GameAngel64 I also regard mathematics as not an absolute truth, but a conditional truth. You have to assume that the set of premises it rests on are true in order for anything else within the mathematical system to be considered true. Those premises are postulates which are the most basic truths of mathematics that by their very definition are true. There is no way for the postulates to be false. Quote: And yes, Descartes through his method of doubt was able to conclude that, even if all else was only serving to deceive him, that he must at least exist, otherwise there would be no one there to be deceived! So yes, I guess I exist, but the nature of who I am, really, and the nature of my existence may not be known. I could be plugged into the Matrix for all I know. This is true, and I never said otherwise; all I ever said was that you know that you exist. However if you continue to doubt everything, nothing productive will come of it, thus there is no pragmatic truth in using Descartes method of doubt and finding that the only solid conclusion is one's own existence. Quote: All of our methods for defining facts and truth are fallible - we're relying on human senses and reasoning, and we know they are not perfect. That's why we have to rely on a sort of faith, that THIS time, in this situation, THAT person, that person is in his right mind, and he knows what he's talking about. As far as believing in the past, or relying on the sun coming up again tomorrow, those are functional truths - it's easier to get by believing them (even if you can't be sure you know it). Once again, not all truths deduced by pure human reasoning are fallible, but a vast majority of them are. Quote: I'm not trying to be difficult. There is in fact a branch of philosophy called epistemology that strictly deals with how we can know anything, so I'm not the only one to stress my little head over such a thing we generally take for granted. I know very much of this branch, hell, philosophy used to be my major until they made me take ethics classes. I much prefer metaphysics or epistemology and I absolutely hate ethics. Although, to be honest, part of what you're arguing is due to epistemology and a much bigger portion is due to metaphysics. Quote: As far as the dragon kid, it's been duly noted that society defines what counts as sane or insane. Deviating from social norms is likely to get notice, as well as having habits that interfere with your interactions with others. However, Wikipedia made a point: If you're in a society where stoning people is a given, and you refuse and call it barbaric, now YOU are insane, or at least have some kind of personality disorder, by psychological definition. So is there no better measure of sanity than majority opinion? Or does sanity and insanity not exist at all, and is it merely a product of human design? It's not a 'true' majority opinion on behaviors, it's a majority opinion on behaviors that affect one's interactions with others so that they deviate significantly from the norm. The stoning example isn't necessarily indicative of someone being percieved as having a disorder because it doesn't describe how that persons ability to live is affected. If the refusal of stoning has no effect on their behavior (other than refusing to stone) then they are not insane. In the U.S. Christians make up a vast majority of the population, does being an atheist make one insane? No, because it doesn't affect how they lead a secular life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
