So to wrap things up, if someone has an outlandish or bizarre idea that the vast majority of others find difficult to comprehend, should we not be more careful and slow to ascribe a diagnosis — Benj96
In a sense the antipyschotic medication = disproof, an argument! — Agent Smith
It’s like a catch 22 situation. If a madman agrees he’s mad he’s mad, even he recognises it! (should this not actually show sanity?), if he denies his madness well that’s because he’s clearly mad right? — Benj96
Delusions are restricted to opposition/denial of known facts. For instance to say the earth is flat is delusional. — Agent Smith
If someone has a suspected delusion and is asked if they think it is a delusion they have two options:
1). They concede that it seems to be a delusion - in which case they agree with the doctor or person asking. This tends to be taken as confirmation that it’s a delusion.
2). They deny it’s a delusion, to them it seems perfectly reasonable and logical. But because they are suspected to be deluded this again seems to confirm their delusion?!
How can this be? It’s like a catch 22 situation. If a madman agrees he’s mad he’s mad, even he recognises it! (should this not actually show sanity?), if he denies his madness well that’s because he’s clearly mad right? — Benj96
So to wrap things up, if someone has an outlandish or bizarre idea that the vast majority of others find difficult to comprehend, should we not be more careful and slow to ascribe a diagnosis. How many geniuses have we admitted to psychiatric institutions for their big ideas? Especially if it’s one that is metaphysical, epistemological or deontological in nature. — Benj96
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.