Thread: stupld questlon.. about reaLlty

l know l'm a thlnklng thlng and so l know my thoughts are real..
Descartes was rlght on that..

but besldes that l dont see how we can know lf were crazy or not.
l just wonder lf we could have been aLlve then went crazy.. and crazy ls just much more organlzed, deeper than what we deflne lt as..
(hope not)
can you explaln why l'm wrong? cuz that thought scares me.
thanks.

It might be helpful if you could define what you mean by crazy. It is not a term to found in science, or as far as I know in philosphy. So what constitutes crazy for you? Is it deviation from normal behaviour, in which case what is normal behaviour? Is it consistent in time and place?

I doubt you have anything to worry about, but defining your terms may help you to recognise that.

the medical term insane is what i mean.

i'm not insane .. lol
i'm just asking you to tell me why that isnt possible.. that what we call reality is caused by insanity and we just dont know it.

Originally Posted by Dell1234

the medical term insane is what i mean.

i'm not insane .. lol
i'm just asking you to tell me why that isnt possible.. that what we call reality is caused by insanity and we just dont know it.

Strictly speaking insane is not a medical term, but a legal one, used in courts of law to define whether or not a person is capable of taking responsibility (criminally speaking) for his or her own actions.

In any case, more and more we come to the conclusion (at least in philosophy) that 'crazy' is just a convention reflecting that which is outside the 'norm' (that itself being whatever a society decides are its main values/ideas).

Once you think about it, there can't be any other useful definition of it, and mere introspection, without something comparative (the norms of society in this case) will not allow you to make a judgement on such a matter. Without other minds to take into account there is no way for you to determine any distinction between saneness and craziness. (This is akin to Wittgenstein's "Private Language" argument.)

As a side note, it's wonderful that you have thought about Descartes' famous cogito enough to come up with a considered opinion on it. Be aware, however, that some analytical philosphers believe that even the cogito (ergo sum) overstates the case because thinking is only evidence of that particular thought and does not entail (meaning make necessary) that there has to be a brain or mind or person doing the thinking. That last conclusion is, therefore, one that we are adding to the issue without evidence, based simply upon our prejudices regarding our possession of minds. Just a little something to chew on.

Welcome to the forum.

cheer

shanks

l would surely (thlnk) that one would have to have some sort of braln to thlnk. or maybe even splrlt for that matter..

l know that thls world seems real to me. How do l know that l'm not crazy, and just dont remember Llvlng before l went crazy..

ls lt because of the organlzatlon of thls world and the mlnute detalLs..
the reLlablLlty of physlcal laws.. ?

help me thanks.

We're all crazy in our own way. Nothing is real from all perspectives and real isn't a persepctive to anyone because reality is what you make it. Thats the difference between the 'social norm' and 'crazy', deciding what is real and what is not real based on your own beliefs or society's.

That is rhetorical though so its up to you.

Even if you were different before and cannot remember. You will probably never know. Whats important is that you carry on the knowledge of being able to question before you knew and remember, and then go on in life. And who knows, one day you might remember everything, and you might remember there was nothing.

Originally Posted by Dell1234

l would surely (thlnk) that one would have to have some sort of braln to thlnk. or maybe even splrlt for that matter..

l know that thls world seems real to me. How do l know that l'm not crazy, and just dont remember Llvlng before l went crazy..

ls lt because of the organlzatlon of thls world and the mlnute detalLs..
the reLlablLlty of physlcal laws.. ?

help me thanks.

Bad Wolf's post contain some good sound thinking and is worth reading closely.

If, however, you want to get deeper into the issues of ontology (what it is that 'actually' exists), epistemology (how do we know these things and how reliable is that knowledge?) and other aspects of philosophy, we're more than happy to help.

One hint: do not confuse the inconceivable (what you cannot believe) with the impossible.

It's a good philosophical maxim!