[Antiessentialist]

Recently, I've been accused of paranoia and delusions, which I'm loath to grant are in fact the case by dint of the dearth and unrelatedness of the accusers' credentials as well as my own direct assessments of my judgments' accuracies. Dismissal in such a fashion suffers from unpersuasiveness particularly where the genetic fallacy would be attributed, so it would seem that some case to exonerate me must be built. How I would exonerate myself from such charges of paranoia and delusions is relatively unclear, given that assessments of intentions are subjective where intentions might be plausibly observable at all, and the retrieval of what physical evidence would attest to my recollections is infeasible; hence, I seek the advice of the forum.

A delusion is an unwavering belief (or disbelief) in light of widely-proven facts to the contrary. Thus a delusion can be proven or not.

I hope this helps.

[Antiessentialist]

Originally Posted by Helen Back

A delusion is an unwavering belief (or disbelief) in light of widely-proven facts to the contrary. Thus a delusion can be proven or not.

I hope this helps.

In the case of the matters under dispute, decisive evidence is infeasible or impossible to obtain, so provenness may be a distinguishing contrary indicator; however, the accusers have succeeded in persuading broad audiences. It may not even be possible for me to adequately demonstrate to substantial numbers that the rationales they've presented to others are indecisive. My citing psychiatrists' and psychologists' evaluations of me tends to be countered as an argument from authority on one hand and a product of the professionals having been either deceived, misinformed, or uninformed on another, so I'm still at something of a loss.

You make a good point.

I like your signature. My French is a little rusty, but does it translate: "I am a doll with shiny eyes who plays in the middle of the fan"?

[Antiessentialist]

Originally Posted by Helen Back

You make a good point.

I like your signature. My French is a little rusty, but does it translate: "I am a doll with shiny eyes who plays in the middle of the fan"?

It's an allusion to Nicklausse's warning in act I of les Contes d'Hoffman that Olympia is a mechanical doll, preceded immediately by the declaration that everything is physics.

The difficulty seems to lie more in the realm of delivering adequate demonstrations than in knowing whether it's so per se.

True, like an instinct. Many things don't lend themselves to replication in a laboratory.

Originally Posted by Antiessentialist

Recently, I've been accused of paranoia and delusions, which I'm loath to grant are in fact the case by dint of the dearth and unrelatedness of the accusers' credentials as well as my own direct assessments of my judgments' accuracies. Dismissal in such a fashion suffers from unpersuasiveness particularly where the genetic fallacy would be attributed, so it would seem that some case to exonerate me must be built. How I would exonerate myself from such charges of paranoia and delusions is relatively unclear, given that assessments of intentions are subjective where intentions might be plausibly observable at all, and the retrieval of what physical evidence would attest to my recollections is infeasible; hence, I seek the advice of the forum.

Depends, with delusions; it generally can be like trying to hit a moving target.

Depending on the severity of illness, the base skill you would term 'logic', itself becomes unsteady, unstable, corrupted, so when a person tries to apply logic, that process in itself, may become faulty, the whole cognitive base that supports it, may in itself disintegrate. That's part of the reason why people with serious psychotic illness take meds, to prevent that cognitive disintegration.