This illustrates, despite the imaginary examples, the obvious fact that crazy people are found to be crazy because they hold unique beliefs, not because they hold unlikely beliefs.
What if I were batshit crazy, but my delusions just happened to match up ok with reality? Maybe the imaginary buildigs I see match up ok with real buildings. mine are yellow, but it rarely comes up.
But yes, it's very rare that delusions aren't considered delusional based on how many people agree with you.
have you compaired your version of reality with someone elses? resently?
would you in casual conversation mention that that building is yellow?
what if your freind told you it wasnt, but say red instead. how would he prove it to you? how would you proove its yellow?
why would a differnce in perception mean you were crazy? like whos perception is the benchmark? and how is that prooven?
ever notice that we still describe colors to each other in discriptives in as basic a color as posable? eg: that building is made of red brick. (agreed) but who sees what red?
or for that fact, ive been taught that "that" color that i see is called red there for even if i see something else i would still know its red.
attempt to describe the color red with out useing color. (and light physics doesnt count because a wavelenght value has no mental comparison)
we take on faith that were all seeing the same thing, but we cant be sure. and thats where the fun comes in.
(yadda yadda colective unconcious reality yadda yadda yadda)
im not worried about insanity, you can be right off your rocker but as long as your "functional" "harmless" and "scociable" i really dont mind.
I agree there. The comparative color quandry definately boggles my mind.
Though it's good to know that we can at least compare colors in a black and white way. If I see yellow and purple and note that the purple is a darker color than the yellow, nobody disagrees. In black and white purple is darker. Yellow so as long as we don't have light dark backwards, we can be sure we're in the ballpark.
But yes, the difference between crazy and sane seems more often based on the difference between functional and non-functional.
Insanity is something that is both harmful and unusual. It has to be both. Believing that there are faeries that tell me cute but harmless things is not insanity, neither is smoking.
What is to not understand? To believe something incredible because you have been taught so is vastly different from believing something incredible because your brain came up with it on its own.
The similarities are greater than the differences, from where I am standing. Both require you to surrender rational thought. Both require you to prefer something nonsensical over something sensible. One may come from what you are taught (although converts cannot use that excuse) and one may come from a mental illness, but neither make any sense.
Actually there is a huge difference between an irrational belief and an irrational person. People may subscribe to an irrational belief for a number of reasons, the most common of which are social. The belief can be irrational but the person adheres to it for perfectly rational reasons. Conversely a person can hold on to a perfectly valid belief for utterly irrational reasons, but this is generally not considered a problem by society, and ignored.
Hmm, so you did. Presumably we agree, then, that holding irrational beliefs is not in itself a sign of insanity. That's good. I vaguely dislike disagreeing with the few people who bother to actually think.
So why do all the flippant detractors get to define Christianity in terms chosen by them?
I can't think of a single scripture or interpretation of scripture that would lead to using the word "superhero" to describe the Second Coming (tm).
You can make the case firmly, politely, and most of all fully RATIONALLY if you just stick to the facts and what is actually there, as opposed to inflating believers (and this goes for anything, not just Christianity) into a clumsy cartoon version of themself.
For instance, far more damning than any joke about Tom Cruise or scribbled cartoon about Hubbard is simple, unedited video of highly-ranking LA Scientologists bullying a rational, reasonable detractor.
Also, jeers for using the extremely loaded "virtuous" in the final sentence.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-18 07:06 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-18 07:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-18 07:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-18 07:58 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-18 08:07 pm (UTC)But yes, it's very rare that delusions aren't considered delusional based on how many people agree with you.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-18 10:41 pm (UTC)would you in casual conversation mention that that building is yellow?
what if your freind told you it wasnt, but say red instead. how would he prove it to you? how would you proove its yellow?
why would a differnce in perception mean you were crazy? like whos perception is the benchmark? and how is that prooven?
ever notice that we still describe colors to each other in discriptives in as basic a color as posable? eg: that building is made of red brick. (agreed) but who sees what red?
or for that fact, ive been taught that "that" color that i see is called red there for even if i see something else i would still know its red.
attempt to describe the color red with out useing color.
(and light physics doesnt count because a wavelenght value has no mental comparison)
we take on faith that were all seeing the same thing, but we cant be sure. and thats where the fun comes in.
(yadda yadda colective unconcious reality yadda yadda yadda)
im not worried about insanity, you can be right off your rocker but as long as your "functional" "harmless" and "scociable" i really dont mind.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-19 03:23 pm (UTC)Though it's good to know that we can at least compare colors in a black and white way. If I see yellow and purple and note that the purple is a darker color than the yellow, nobody disagrees. In black and white purple is darker. Yellow so as long as we don't have light dark backwards, we can be sure we're in the ballpark.
But yes, the difference between crazy and sane seems more often based on the difference between functional and non-functional.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-18 10:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-18 09:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-18 10:07 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-18 10:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-19 08:41 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-19 09:15 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-19 11:13 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-19 03:33 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-19 09:37 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-19 09:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-19 10:45 pm (UTC)I can't think of a single scripture or interpretation of scripture that would lead to using the word "superhero" to describe the Second Coming (tm).
You can make the case firmly, politely, and most of all fully RATIONALLY if you just stick to the facts and what is actually there, as opposed to inflating believers (and this goes for anything, not just Christianity) into a clumsy cartoon version of themself.
For instance, far more damning than any joke about Tom Cruise or scribbled cartoon about Hubbard is simple, unedited video of highly-ranking LA Scientologists bullying a rational, reasonable detractor.
Also, jeers for using the extremely loaded "virtuous" in the final sentence.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-20 02:53 am (UTC)He's specifically satirizing one specific group: American fundamentalists.