Is there a way to tell when you are deluded?

[wynn]

Why must one think the material world as any purpose at all?

Because one uses it, consumes it, interacts with it; and because humans are beings that have volition.

Why not take each thing for what it is, for itself and in itself?
Like we take a work of art or a piece of music or a good meal.

Not being aware of one's intentions is not the same as not having any.

Seems to me there is more danger of delusion imposing some conceptual schemata over the template of material being.

Without said conceptual schemata, we wouldn't know what to do with those things on the plate.

Why project such preconceptions on our experience? I can go thru my day availing myself of the benefits of material conveniences. But it doesn't mean I assume its purpose is just to please me. Other people reap the rewards of material being also.

The empahsis isn't on those conveniences pleasing just you and nobody else; but on pleasing.

Then there's other aspects of material being that hinder us. Disease, bad weather, crime, malfunctioning technology, etc.

You wouldn't see disease, bad weather, crime etc. as hindrances if you wouldn't already operate out of the idea that this world is there to please you (and should please you).

 

[Magical Realist]

Because one uses it, consumes it, interacts with it; and because humans are beings that have volition.

I use and interact with all sorts of natural resources without assuming they exist for me. Water. Electricity. Gas. It would be ridiculous for me to assert that these things came into existence for my pleasure. I know of no one who thinks like that. Rather the resources were just there, and we found a way to use them. No preplanned purpose involved at all.

Not being aware of one's intentions is not the same as not having any.

I can buy a work of art with the intent of hanging it on my wall. But that doesn't necessarily mean I think the work of art was made just for me. I have simply reappropriated an already existing thing for my own use. The work of art was made for its own sake. That's what I like about it. It's spontaneous expression of feelings.

Without said conceptual schemata, we wouldn't know what to do with those things on the plate.

I can eat without assuming the food came about just for me. The animals and plants that I turn into my food were for their own sake before I ever came along. I was nowhere in sight. There is no need to project some abstract teleological schemata to avail myself of the benefits of this nourishment. To even think like that is a little crazy.

The empahsis isn't on those conveniences pleasing just you and nobody else; but on pleasing.

The matter that these are made of preexisted anyone around to please. To say that materiality has this purpose is certainly anthropocentric. Matter has preexisted humans for quite some time now. It isn't here to "please". We just adapt it to meet some of our purposes. But that doesn't mean that's what it exists for.

You wouldn't see disease, bad weather, crime etc. as hindrances if you wouldn't already operate out of the idea that this world is there to please you (and should please you).

I don't see the world existing to please me because I already know it existed long before me and manifests in many more ways that have nothing to do with pleasing me. Take air for existence. I only use a tiny fraction of this tremendous conglomerate of gases. Does that mean the earth's atmosphere exists to make me breath. Ofcourse not. I am only one fleeting tiny parasite thriving on the elements of an ancient planet. Seems to me the only delusionals in danger of overprojecting such purposiveness on the universe are the theists, for whom God designed everything to please and help in some way:

Genesis 1:

28 "God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so."

 

[Yazata]

Is there a way to tell when you are deluded?

What does the word 'delusion' mean? (I get the impression that it's a word that's used more often in psychology than in philosophy.) Are delusions different from errors or mistakes?

A dictionary might define 'delusion' as something like 'a belief that continues to be held with strong conviction, even in the face of strong evidence or argument against it'.

Delusions might be fairly obvious in the case of clinical psychoses. But it's probably more of a judgement call in normal life. The definition just kind of shifts the emphasis over to 'strong evidence or argument against it'.

That's apt to be controversial in most of the cases that interest us.

Is there a way for us to tell when we ourselves are deluded? Probably not, unless we are somehow persuaded about the strength of the evidence or arguments against the view we've been holding. If we then change our minds, our former belief might not have been a delusion at all, but merely a mistake.

It seems to me that 'deluded' and 'delusion' aren't words that people are likely to ever use to refer to themselves and to their own beliefs. It's more a judgement (and a rather insulting one) that other people make about those that they disagree with.

 

[wynn]

I use and interact with all sorts of natural resources without assuming they exist for me.
/.../

And yet the only way in which you use all these resources is to please yourself.

Indeed, you may not believe that they exist just to please you, but you use them only for your pleasure.

 

[lightgigantic]

I use and interact with all sorts of natural resources without assuming they exist for me.

We are not talking about ideas on the cosmic manifestation of the phenomenal world.
we are talking about ideas of how an individual ultimately interacts with the environment they are in.

Water. Electricity. Gas. It would be ridiculous for me to assert that these things came into existence for my pleasure. I know of no one who thinks like that. Rather the resources were just there, and we found a way to use them. No preplanned purpose involved at all.

We are talking about the values that arise in the individual as a consequence of the phenomenal world.
For example you no doubt have quite a wonderful arrangement for water, electricity and gas which go far, far beyond simply being there and existing outside of any preplanned purpose or structure.

I can buy a work of art with the intent of hanging it on my wall. But that doesn't necessarily mean I think the work of art was made just for me. I have simply reappropriated an already existing thing for my own use. The work of art was made for its own sake. That's what I like about it. It's spontaneous expression of feelings.

Even if you do something eccentric and pull something out of your next door neighbors rubbish to hang on your wall as a piece of art, you are manifesting your values as an individual.
Hence : Because one uses it, consumes it, interacts with it; and because humans are beings that have volition.

I can eat without assuming the food came about just for me. The animals and plants that I turn into my food were for their own sake before I ever came along. I was nowhere in sight. There is no need to project some abstract teleological schemata to avail myself of the benefits of this nourishment. To even think like that is a little crazy.

Sure.
However we are discussing schemata arising from volition, not teleology.

The matter that these are made of preexisted anyone around to please. To say that materiality has this purpose is certainly anthropocentric. Matter has preexisted humans for quite some time now. It isn't here to "please". We just adapt it to meet some of our purposes. But that doesn't mean that's what it exists for.

If you want to talk about matters of delusion, then obviously there is a need to talk about extracting purpose from the environment one is in.

I don't see the world existing to please me because I already know it existed long before me and manifests in many more ways that have nothing to do with pleasing me. Take air for existence. I only use a tiny fraction of this tremendous conglomerate of gases. Does that mean the earth's atmosphere exists to make me breath. Ofcourse not. I am only one fleeting tiny parasite thriving on the elements of an ancient planet.

It wouldn't matter if you were living under a different tree every night or residing in an urban mega-complex affording a godzilla sized carbon footprint per household (although given the more than likely scenario you are residing in something closer to the later, "thriving" would probably be the operative word ...).

You have a myriad of ways to assess and manage the world that are simply out of bounds for a "parasite" (at the very least, a tapeworm wouldn't hang something on your intestinal wall to beautify their surroundings)

Seems to me the only delusionals in danger of overprojecting such purposiveness on the universe are the theists, for whom God designed everything to please and help in some way:

Genesis 1:

28 "God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so."

actually I haven't introduced any religious (or teleological) issues into this discussion so far.


IOW the question of extracting value and purpose from the world is intrinsic to all humans (and indeed all living entities) .

AS wynn said, Not being aware of one's intentions is not the same as not having any.

Seeing one's intentions is the first thing one would have to look at if they are asking "Is there a way to tell when you are deluded?"

 

[Magical Realist]

And yet the only way in which you use all these resources is to please yourself.

Indeed, you may not believe that they exist just to please you, but you use them only for your pleasure.

The statement made was about what we assume is the purpose of the material world, not whether we use it for our own benefits. Here it is again:

The core of this problem lies in what one ultimately thinks the purpose of this material world is ... or what one thinks is the ultimate relationship between this world and the living entity. . For as long as one thinks this world serves no higher purpose than a tool meant for one's enjoyment one will continually be tasked with the problem of seeking an arrangement that this world simply does not provide.

And like I said, I don't assume the purpose of the water, gas, or electricity is simply for my enjoyment. Do you?

 

[lightgigantic]

And like I said, I don't assume the purpose of the water, gas, or electricity is simply for my enjoyment. Do you?

So on what basis are utility companies fielding their products to their customers at an unprecedented rate of saturation?
Duty?
:shrug:

 

[Magical Realist]

So on what basis are utility companies fielding their products to their customers at an unprecedented rate of saturation?
Duty?
:shrug:

People who need those utilities to survive, which doesn't mean that anyone assumes water, gas, or electricity exist solely for their own personal use. Do you assume that? There's a lot of gas, water, and electricity that exists that I will never use. Even moreso is that the case for the rest of the material world. Trees, rocks, animals, buildings, other people--the vast bulk of the material world largely consists of things that serve me in no way whatsoever. How could anyone possibly think that's its sole purpose?

 

[lightgigantic]

People who need those utilities to survive,

Kind of makes you wonder why embracing changes due to climate change (a consequence of heavily utilizing these things we need to "survive") meets such resistence, eh?
:scratchin:

which doesn't mean that anyone assumes water, gas, or electricity exist solely for their own personal use. Do you assume that? There's a lot of gas, water, and electricity that exists that I will never use.

So you also don't enjoy eating chocolate, since there is tons of the stuff you will never throw down your gob?

 

[Magical Realist]

So you also don't enjoy eating chocolate, since there is tons of the stuff you will never throw down your gob?

I don't enjoy chocolate period because I'm prediabetic. But if I did that certainly wouldn't mean I believe all chocolate exists just for my enjoyment. Aww..but then you said the purpose of the material world didn't you? That's quite a bit more than just chocolate now isn't it? Hence: "Even moreso is that the case for the rest of the material world. Trees, rocks, animals, buildings, other people--the vast bulk of the material world largely consists of things that serve me in no way whatsoever. How could anyone possibly think that's its sole purpose?"

 

[Syne]

Is there a way to tell when you are deluded?

Yes.

de·lu·sion
1. an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.​

By the definition alone, atheism, for example, would qualify as idiosyncratic (peculiar) and contradicting generally accepted reality.

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't enjoy chocolate period because I'm prediabetic.

That doesn't mean you can't enjoy it.
It just means that you suffer if you try.

But if I did that certainly wouldn't mean I believe all chocolate exists just for my enjoyment. Aww..but then you said the purpose of the material world didn't you?

no
I never said that enjoyment of an object in the material equates to enjoying all of it in quantity ... but then gross materialists commonly equate quality with quantity, so I guess your mistake is forgivable ...

That's quite a bit more than just chocolate now isn't it?

not at all ... but at the very least its serving to rein in your teleological diversions

Hence: "Even moreso is that the case for the rest of the material world. Trees, rocks, animals, buildings, other people--the vast bulk of the material world largely consists of things that serve me in no way whatsoever. How could anyone possibly think that's its sole purpose?"

Its simply your delusion to think we are discussing such things.

By your logic nobody enjoys anything since there are vast reserves of it (as well as vast reserves of others things that only share an indirect relationship with the said object - eg : I only enjoy cars ... not car making factories and the raw materials they require for manufacture) that one never touches.
:shrug:

 

[Magical Realist]

By your logic nobody enjoys anything since there are vast reserves of it (as well as vast reserves of others things that only share an indirect relationship with the said object - eg : I only enjoy cars ... not car making factories and the raw materials they require for manufacture) that one never touches

You were the one that claimed people enjoying the material world means they believe it exists for their enjoyment. I have refuted that with several real world examples. EOD..

 

[Magical Realist]

Yes.

de·lu·sion
1. an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.​

By the definition alone, atheism, for example, would qualify as idiosyncratic (peculiar) and contradicting generally accepted reality.

Atheism by definition is a lack of belief in God. Since delusion is a belief, atheism cannot by definition be classified as delusion.

 

[lightgigantic]

You were the one that claimed people enjoying the material world means they believe it exists for their enjoyment.

I think the real problem here is that you are unwilling to discuss the core aspect of delusion - namely individual and environment.
Successfully burning down strawmen of your own creation doesn't cut the mustard I'm afraid.
:shrug:

I have refuted that with several real world examples. EOD..

lol

 

[lightgigantic]

Atheism by definition is a lack of belief in God. Since delusion is a belief, atheism cannot by definition be classified as delusion.

lol

perhaps if you are talking exclusively about the atheism of tables and chairs ... but since anyone who rants on the internet for over 3000 posts about it is clearly not in that category, I'm afraid you don't automatically get to give your self the stamp

 

[Stryder]

If you wake up in a filthy cold ditch with snot icicles hanging from your nose, and your body scratched by brambles,
and covered in mud from head to toe,
when you thought you had been brought by fairies to a silver palace
and was lying in a bed of rose petals while they sang beautiful songs, and brought you delicious cakes,
then you have probably been deluded.

Or you likely got spiked the night before and ended up tripping, although if there was cake it could of been the space variety suggesting while even in a state of completely reality breakdown, there still bread(cake)crumbs as to what actually happened.

 

[Capracus]

Yes.

de·lu·sion
1. an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.​

By the definition alone, atheism, for example, would qualify as idiosyncratic (peculiar) and contradicting generally accepted reality.

You conveniently left out the key statement of “or rational argument” in your application of the definition. Since rejection of an unsubstantiated belief is a rational stance, atheism could not currently qualify as delusional according to the above definition. On the other hand, all theistic beliefs are contradicted by rational arguments.

 

[andy1033]

On the other hand, all theistic beliefs are contradicted by rational arguments.

No they are not. I bet the people running society with electronic mind control know that we access something higher.

You listen to much to ricahrd dawkins whom has never found out nothing in his life, and things everyone is as bad as him.

 

[Magical Realist]

Strange how strong religious beliefs are quite common among the mentally ill. One would almost feel prompted to posit a correlation between the two. Delusion is delusion afterall no matter who believes in it. Why would the belief that you are God's only son be ok for some people but not for others?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_delusion