Forget the argument about eternal damnation, it’s too easy for me to win, and it’s unusually cruel, and contradictorarily cruel…
I’m the first person who didn’t steal sex…
To subjectify women, you have to explain to them that their sexual stratification causing a million suicides a year and their use of children as trinkets (objects) for self esteem by not giving them methods of suicide are the most wicked deeds a person can actually perpetrate in life.
But the women have a loophole, you cannot hurt them without being the asshole who doesn’t deserve sex… Since women only have sex with assholes and objectifiers…
The only option for men is to construct an entire cosmos with their own mind that has them as the only sentient being in it…
The consequence of having a conscience as a male is eternal damnation, but women cannot be punished for it!!!
That’s how truly evil all of this actually is…
Women hate being subjectified!!!
They like people to be trinkets for self esteem on a scale that men don’t even approach.
Convincing yourself that something is true does not automatically make it so
And even if it is true there is absolutely no way that you could know for sure
I think it is important to look at one common feature with both of them. They both think they alone have found the secret. Is this possible? Yes, it is. One person may realize something no one else has (yet, potentially). That’s a tough position to be in, especially I would think, for the sane person. We are social creatures, we tend to believe, incorrectly, that if we know something is true and we are right, we should be able to convince others. If only. That someone will catch on seems likely, since most of the big ideas we know about, well, someone else caught on, and then more people. So it seems like the inevitable process. But it seems likely to me that people have figured things out before the time was ripe. The current paradigms disallowed the agreement of others. You may also have personality issues. Ecmandu is cranky and flailing often. PhoneticEthics seems rather solipsistic. Both are poor communicators. But this does not mean they are wrong. It just adds to the signs it is OK to ignore them. On the other hand, if you have come up with something that is ahead of its time or too far out there for most others, this will affect your personality - potentially making you incredibly frustrated or paranoid or cut off. Also the type of mind that will come up with a novel idea may be a novel mind. Aspberger’s, or extremely creative, or narcissitic, or just plain ornery stubborn. The very traits that allow the insights make the person seem to weird to be right.
You imply above that one should be able to recognize one’s own emotional bias. But that is very tricky. Obviously if you have come up with a great truth, you can always be accused of emotional bias, since if you come up with a new truth, this will stroke the ego. So people who do come up with new truths and people who just think they do, will both potentially get ego-stroking, so we cannot discount something based on that and neither can they. They have to be good at introspection and to know if you are good introspection you have to be good at introspection - or perhaps, at least, very good at listening to the insights of peers. Both of these guys may very well be alone.
ONe can certainly be right about one’s self-evaluation of sanity, but the issue is
when I look at myself and when the loopy look at themselves, are they getting warning signs that they skip over?
Is there a phenomenological difference?
With Ecmandu, since he is telling me about me: iow his theory entails judgments of me - since I have sex and I am not him - in part I reject his hypothesis because of my self-sense and also my sense of others both male and female. Here I think his personality begins to become relevent. He seems very naive about how to communicate his ideas. He seems NOT someone with a great deal of psychological insight when it comes to interacting with others. This seems relevent to his hypothesis. If he said he had come up with a powerful mathematical equation or some engineering product, the fact that he seems to have poor psychological insight and communication skills would be irrelevent. It would be ad hom to consider it relevent in such cases. But his hypothesis relates directly to interactive skills and psychological insight. The fact that he is so poor at these things seems very relevent to me. Couple that with my own experiences and knowledge and his ideas seem very weak to me easier to dismiss.
PE is an ever worse communicator, but this is not relevent, I don’t think, to his hypotheses. However it does lead to me not having any way to use, test, apply his ideas, so his ideas seem moot to me. So what?
(I know I strayed from the OP topic: are they aware they are insane?, but it seemed connected to write about how I view them. How one views other and how one views oneself involves many of the same skills and warning signals)
I wonder how they can be anything but aware of their own insanity, to put it in that light. Otherwise, what would drive them so deep into insanity other than awareness of their ‘insanity’?
Are modern doctors actually understanding insanity properly, or misdiagnosing a reaction to something that is actually there that they may not be willing to admit exists for their own fear of being found, and/or pushed, to be just as insane.
At what point is society giving up on actually understanding insanity and just prescribing pills or ‘treatments’ that fail to actually do more than just cover up the ailments to varying degrees? And, in some cases, fail to do even that.
Is it simple curiosity that prompts the question that is the OP of this thread? Because, to me, there are better questions to be asked of insanity than simply, ‘are the insane aware of their own insanity?’
If they are and can’t come back, or choose not to come back, who would dare go in after them to attempt to bring them back?
If they aren’t aware, can they come out of it without even being aware that they were or had been and at that point if someone were to tell them that they had been, would they then believe it or simply believe themselves to being fucked with, or would it give the third option of making them relapse back into it?
You all sit arguing about the inconsequential instead of the actual meat and I find that to be insane. Accepted insanity by societal standards, but still insanity.
There is chemical insanity(brain damage through chemical imbalance, born or injury )
Then mental trauma can bring about insanity.
The damaged does not know, the mentally traumatized might know. My mother was bipolar and an addict, lousy f**ked up insane. Mom thought she was fine and could not figure out why so few stuck around even her family. Once I realized her illness I found it easier to love her and stick around. She suicided a few years back. Overdose of sleeping pills and vodka. I miss her.
