Posts by Matt

I’m of the mind I can just depart company with this person…it’s not worth my time to deep dive into their delusions. But because this isn’t the first time I’ve dealt with this type of thing it has caused me to really want to draw the line in the sand between what is casual belief in something supernatural and what is on the complete verge of madness. But again if the person doesn’t truly believe what they say they see…then we have an untrustworthy person.

And if they don’t truly believe it and if they are attempting to minister to someone…that should make for a significant cognitive dilemma.

This is not my first go around with people like this, I’ve met people have claimed that they see ghosts, angels, spiritual guides etc. I just didn’t know this particular person believed it.

My question to them is very, very simple and the answer I get is one of a duality…that they simultaneously believe that there is a supernatural realm and they have access to it AND the natural world as we experience it is real and true. So a “normal” person may be living their life in this reality like the rest of us and also simultaneously hold absolutely shockingly bizarre beliefs that they “see” supernatural things.

This type of thing doesn’t come up much, but I can tell you I’ve met a handful of people that share these similar beliefs.

If a person dismisses judgement on this, it is in many ways denying there is a standard for truth. If I concede this person may ACTUALLY be seeing angels and they just don’t effect me…that opens up a massive world of confusion.

Seeing visual data or the lack of seeing such things as colors and claiming to see angels are very different. Colorblindness is a natural physiological condition that is evidentially effecting a percentage of the population. It’s not the same as “mental” illness like schizophrenia.

As Torquatus relates in “On Ends”…

“Moreover, unless the constitution of the world is thoroughly understood, we shall by no means be able to justify the verdicts of our senses. Further, our mental perceptions all arise from our sensations; and if these are all to be true, as the system of Epicurus proves to us, then only will cognition and perception become possible.”

I am having a fascinating discussion with someone who is deep into believing in supernatural things. Kind of beyond the usual “religious” view into the realm of occultism etc. I honestly didn’t realize this person believed what they apparently do, and it was brought up as if it’s a common casual thing to do ….so I pressed her on it.

This whole discussion relates to the Epicurean idea that the senses are the standard for truth. This particular person believes she sees “things” like angels, spirits, demons etc. I truly don’t believe this person is mentally ill, but I must now evaluate this situation based in my knowledge of Epicurean Philosophy. Because we need to draw a distinct demarcation line in the sand between casual superstition, harmful beliefs and prudent reasoning.

Again, I truly don’t believe this person is clinically ill, but now I’m forced to analyze their behavior and their conclusions.

As Epicureans, we do not believe in supernatural anything. Full stop.

So any explanation must preclude supernaturalism to be the conclusion. So that leaves two options either the person is in fact Ill (with some sort of physio-chemical aberration in the brain) or this phenomena is a sort of social immaturity or imaginative delusion of superstitious idealism that has been allowed to prosper because society allows it to persist and eventually the person believes their imaginative false experiences are somehow relevant or true. Like believing a brief daydream of dragons flying through clouds has reality other than in your own mind. We know it’s just an imaginative daydream, but to others who hold these particular beliefs about spiritual realms etc. they may believe they have “insight” into these realms.

A delusion for a mentally ill person is “real” for them. As real as they cognitively can process that the experience is real and true, such as seeing things or hearing voices. That is a real phenomena in the chemical and physiological makeup of a person’s brain who has a diagnosis. But for someone who doesn’t have something affecting their neural processes “seeing” and “hearing” things is pure imagination.

And I will take the position that people who maintain these “beliefs” are socially immature or at worse fraudsters. I believe the person I’m speaking to now is in the socially immature camp, though they are well into their 50’s. They are claiming to see things that children might claim are invisible friends.

Where this is relevant is that we can see that the Epicurean standard of truth, a strong basis in reality and sensory data is critical for a person’s social and mental well being. Believing in supernaturalism, even casually, will lead to very different conclusions about reality and as with the person I’m speaking with, it separates us from each other by testifying that one of us is speaking truth while the other is lying.

At this point a person must use prudent judgement for the best to “correct” this person. Either by using frank speech to shock them out of their imaginings by letting them know they are in jeopardy of having their friends lose faith in their ability to perceive reality or simply to leave the person to their imaginings neither reinforcing them but also never speaking of them again. I guess it depends on the relationship a person has with the other.

100%   Eikadistes

Yes “sin” is a loaded word outside of the religion it corresponds to. It is so culturally and ecclesiastically specific and relative that it is almost impossible to discuss without significant context.

Religion 100% does cause unnecessary suffering…and simultaneously it is perceived to be a panacea for all life’s difficulties by those who promote it . Yet many times the metaphysical solution is not a cure but a distraction. The question becomes how to fill the vacuum when religion hurts a person who once was religious and now looks for meaning in life. Epicurus might be the “cure” for that person who is ready to make the jump out of religion and is courageously ready to face the stark reality of this world.

I do not come across many “philosophical” Christians…and I mean people who purely follow the faith from the ethical teachings as the main REASON for following their faith such as “loving thy neighbor” and “turning the other cheek” etc…whether these teachings are realistic or doable is another debate entirely. And it would be a good debate to discuss these issues.

But the majority of religious people follow the religion follow it because it’s a tradition they grew up with or due to some metaphysical aspect of life after death/judgement. And they really don’t think deeply about the philosophical implications of what they believe. Their position is based solely on metaphysical ontological and cosmological positions that usually have their roots in Platonic philosophy that is ultimately divorced from the texts. The high level macrocosmic arguments really have no basis in how we live life here and now.

Religious identity is very important to many people. I too grew up with a “religious” identity and it still echoes in my life even now. Arguments in the realm of religion often are fruitless whether it is a secular atheist/agnostic arguing against a Christian, a Christian arguing against a Muslim, a Hindu arguing against a Buddhist etc. because all theological concepts are based in abstraction and are essentially unprovable, there is no real argument to be had and essentially the religious person spends the time “justifying” why they believe in an abstraction (without evidence) and why you should adopt their world view. It’s often more trouble than it’s worth…but again these people hold religion to be a part of their identity and it’s good to remain friendly as possible (as long as they are) without too much turbulence.

Hi @smoothiekiwi, can you please clarify what argument you were making in particular and what argument your friend was making in particular?

I’m not sure I fully understand your friend’s last sentence as being exceedingly meaningful. What implication do you believe it has?

Sadly I’m working….

I have a situation like that too, but his is very much inspired by internet related ideologies. Oddly enough he’d be far more “normal” had he never become so invested in the internet lifestyle that consumes nearly all of society today. I had to remove myself from all forms of social media (except for this forum) to cut off the constant negative energy.

And I don’t attribute this to me or anyone being overly sensitive either, but rather a simple psychological truth that constant exposure to negative people, news, conspiracy theories, apocalyptic narratives etc. can have a detrimental chemical impact on our psyches…especially since there is no reprieve from it 24/7.

I need to try it, I may try it tonight at work if things are quiet. I think some breathing exercises would be good for me since I’m always running between shifts at work, babies and general house related chaos. 🙂

Kalosyni and to dovetail off the “Debbie downer” idea, I also see our social media lives tied to this concept. If we are associating with “friends” or even family that live a toxic social media lifestyle of nastiness, anger and other negative things, it can bleed into our bubble. We can still maintain relations with certain people based on familial ties or old friendships. But since friendship is meant to have mutual benefit it may not be beneficial to associate with people who bring us down or cause us irritation.

If there are ineffable realities, then they will remain ineffable…if at some point we perceive them, they were never ineffable to begin with and simply part of one unified objective reality.

Very true, it’s definitely a fine line here between awe for the magnitude and behavior of the knowable/perceptible universe and fear of some mysteriously inaccessible reality that we can’t perceive…but only certain academics (a new priesthood) can. I don’t want this to be perceived as anti-science, but there is a “lane” that scientist need to stay in and not attempt to use scientific speculation (like multiverses and bubble universes) to lead people with sensationalism into thinking that the mysteries are incalculable and that we as ordinary people can’t know what truth is.

I guess my question is this…by what standard is someone saying that there are imperceptible things If they themselves have not in some way perceived them through scientific instrumentation etc. and then finally through their own senses? It’s like an infinite regression, everything must be perceived by us for it to be known.

So seeing the aggregated beam of light, though I don’t see every individual photon, I still see all the photons in the aggregate beam. Because I don’t see all the individual photons it’s somehow mysteriously inaccessible because my senses don’t see all the individual parts? Yet I do see them! And the light is objectively real. I think this is a weird skewed way of perceiving reality….we are a part of it.

Our perception is real, though it may not be always consistent. A coat rack in a dark room may appear to be a man, it may cause us a disturbance. We may perceive it as a man…but when the light is turned on the coat rack is revealed to be just an object. Our perception is real because regardless of what it “actually” is our reaction via our perception is real.

Our perception may be different or maybe our identification of something might be mistaken, but our perception of it is “real”…I guess but what other standard would someone judge? There are no other arbiters of what is real other than what conscious humans perceive.