Thread: is everybody crazy but me and a few?

Karl Jaspers was the first to define the three main criteria for a belief to be considered delusional in his 1913 book General Psychopathology.[2] These criteria are:
certainty (held with absolute conviction)
incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)[3]

1)im totally uncertain of ALL except the love of my family
2) well ive admitted plenty of time to be wrong havent i?
3) the staged world theory which implies an all true loving god is bizarre but i can give proof like the tankman video hinting to an invisible hand which goes agains the tales of tens of thousand squized by tanks in tianamen, also i could extend very farther into my personal experience which suggest this

1) are you convinced of what you think however normal you see it?
2) when was the last time you admitted to be wrong in a forum?
3)do you belive in the good nature of the universe or god and still believe babies are starving to death in front of her moms? a patently false thought

Originally Posted by luxtpm

These criteria are:
certainty (held with absolute conviction)
incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)

I have never heard this before. It certainly applies to a lot of people who post in the pseudoscience section of this an other forums!

BTW, where did this summary come from?

EDIT: OK, found it: Delusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1) are you convinced of what you think however normal you see it?

Well, there are some things that seem pretty certain: gravity, the sun will rise tomorrow, etc.

2) when was the last time you admitted to be wrong in a forum?

A week or so ago, I expect. I thought I was going to have to do it again today!

3)do you belive in ...

I don't think I believe in anything implausible, bizarre or patently untrue. But then I wouldn't.

It is a bit worrying that this criterion is, arguably, rather subjective.

well my point as that my thought of a staged world hiding the good nature of god is consistent

yet thinking that the universe has a benign nature and acepting kids die from starvation in front of her moms is contradictory and therefore patently false

anyway this post not was adressed to you whom i find a reasonable person but to those who belive blindly in science without ever questioning things, not asking questions, but pondering they could be false, they should watch the truman show

Originally Posted by luxtpm

well my point as that my thought of a staged world hiding the good nature of god is consistent

Your idea of a "staged world" (if I understand it) probably counts as "implausible, bizarre or patently untrue".

However, you have to score a "yes" on all three criteria to be considered delusional. So, I have to concede that you are probably OK.

well its bizarre but not patently false since its consisntent as i explained

this is the normal thought most people have that yet not bizarre is patently false for being contradictory

"thinking that the universe has a benign nature and acepting kids die from starvation in front of her moms"

in making sense i could have accepted the reality of tv which implies the bad nature of the universe

or accept as real the good nature of the univers which makes tv false and the world staged

im neither convinced of which but i try to make sense even to the prize of LOOKING bizarre

To answer your first question; 'Show me a sane man and I will cure him for you.' - Carl Jung.

You are basically asking a fundamental psychology question but at the same time; the fact that you would even consider asking such a question indicates that you have a firm grasp on sanity rather than a fading one.

Originally Posted by luxtpm

this is the normal thought most people have that yet not bizarre is patently false for being contradictory

"thinking that the universe has a benign nature and acepting kids die from starvation in front of her moms"

...


im neither convinced of which but i try to make sense even to the prize of LOOKING bizarre

The easiest way to answer a question like this is to sometimes look at the question rather than the answer. Let me explain using your question:

Something is only contradictory if you talk in terms of right and wrong ie. you search for the ultimate truth (Something I believe is the most insane proposition ever conceived and yet the search for the truth is a very rational activity (now that's contradictory ))

Secondly: saying that something isn't logical is often a thinking response to an emotional feeling that is: this is a meaningless waste of my positive emotions. Therefor the answer should in essence neither explain the contradiction nor provide a solution since it will satisfy your logic but not the real problem. Rather then; search for an answer that satisfies the desire for asking the question and if it explains the logic its a bonus.

Originally Posted by luxtpm

well its bizarre but not patently false since its consisntent as i explained

An idea can be consistent but still patently false. Solipsism, for example. (Which you idea seems to be a form of.)

my solipsism is patently fasle for you and your solipsism is patently flawed for me but not the other way around so solipsism is not a patently false thought for the OBSERVER