Megalomania Profile: "Crazy" is mistaken Righteous

Philosophy Forums Psychology and Mind
1

Arrogant politicians, brash vigilantes, or simply psychos lacking motive. They all seem to begin their defense with this sort of phrase: “People think I’m crazy but I’m actually righteous.” I doubt there’s a real exception.

Maybe the attitude-gone-sour begins with a combination of 2 distinct and seemingly noble things: Optimism-“I’m capable of justice.” and loyalty- “I’m responsable for justice.” Even people whom commit cruelties for pure gratification probably reason to themselves that their victim deserves a punishment.

We all need to believe these 2 things in order to progress. If we can’t be optimistic we may as well kill ourselves, in our view. If we can’t define our responsability to one specific thing (a loyalty) then we don’t have any idea what we should do. Vague choices like “the common good” cannot solidify our ethic. We need a book, a practice, a teaching- religious or not.

I think that people gone insane with their belief in self-righteousness is by their lack of a third important psychological quality- humility.

Humility is not shame, but perhaps simply a refusal to accept a “heightened” quality compared to any others. “God grants me more power” or “I am in greater communication with God” or “God demands more from me” are all examples of lacking humility. Or use the same phrases, replacing “me” with “my mentor.” To be less religious- “This science separates me from you.” or “this science explains a quality endowed strictly to me or you.”

A lot out of the New Age movement (to be vague) prevents this lack of humility, because there’s much talk of our “interconnectedness.” It’s less hierarchical than many religions. However, this can still possess the same danger- megalomaniacs can misinterpret this to allow something such as: “I’m more interconnected than you are.” or “I’m mainly acting as a vessel for many others.”

Perhaps we need to incorporate this kind of definition for humility in early compulsory schooling. Example: “We all have talents, but none are really separate from anyone else.” Surely, we still need the same qualifications that separate our occupations. It’s okay if I’m a certified electrician and you’re not. I might be president and you’re not. But we can recognize from early on that these titles are not effective definitions of skill, they are created only for our necessity in simplicity. For insurance policies, faith from clients, confidence in the worker.

Perhaps that’s a key ingredient to identifying a rising tyrant or a person on the virge of insanity. Not to separate “them” from “us” but an easy way to identify a symptom.

2

Some men are much greater than the rest. Enlightened is a word that is often used to describe them. Men certainly aren’t equal. Great men are used to displaying humility before modern man as a matter of neccessity.

3

What about Nihilists? In essence, wouldn’t a real nihilist have loyalty to nothing because nothing we do matters? Yet they still have the basic human will to survive, and have opinions and preferences that dictate what they “should do”. I guess, of course, you could say that some nihilists do follow a practice and purposely try to portray that they think nothing we do matters. But for some (there has to be at least a few) nihism is just a term given to a belief or way of life. I don’t think it’s teachings or rituals that motivate people, I think it’s beliefs. Beliefs exist with our without books, manuscripts, teachings, practices, rituals, etc.

If the various books/manuscripts of all the different religions did not exist to tell us murder is “wrong”, do you not think we would have figured that out on our own at some point as humans? We see the consequences, and if they are unsavory we develop a belief. This is “bad” because it brings physical or emotional pain to people. Seeing people in pain causes me sadness. So transitively the original act of murder, even if it doesn’t directly effect you, becomes “bad” and that belief is solidified.

People do have instincts, all animals do. But teachings do not give way to new inherent instincts in the human animal, just beliefs. In the case I stated above (concerning murder) I think it’s a mixture of the two as people have a natural instict to survive and ensure survival of their race, but we also have beliefs as to when killing is justified or necessary. War is murder on a huge scale, but we dont call it murder because it’s justified by some other belief. But, let’s use theft as an example. I wouldnt think that the human animal has any natural instincts that deters it from stealing. In fact, in the case of survival, theft may be considered a form of competition, and competition exists for all animals…the concept is inherent at this point. But we have developed a belief based on consequences that deters us from theft.

4

This I just have to disagree with. In my opinion, some men are naturally better at certain things or accomplish more than others. But to say that a man is “greater” than another is unfounded. “Enlightened” is a term that men use to describe themselves, or a select group of believers use to describe a particular person. Name someone who is recognized universally as “enlightened.” Great men are used to displaying humility because humility is part of what makes a great man, not because they are doing a service to those below them. That’s called narcissism. Besides, unless you are talking about people who claim to be the second coming of Christ or something, enlightenment is generally referred to a state of being one can reach if they follow, and adhere, to certain beliefs, practices, etc. So, in theory, anyone has the potential to become enlightened…most are just not willing to live the life of depravation that comes with it.

I’d say every man has the potential to be or do something great. In fact, great men are all around you. Consider your definition of a “great man.” What makes him “great”? Superior intellect, or unmatched skill in some area? What about an ordinary guy, who you never see in the papers that struggles his way through life trying to make something out of nothing. Raising children, being a good father, caring for others, giving, helping, and making friendships and bonds that last the entirety of his life and touch those around him. They will tell you he was a “great man.” How bout a handicapped, mentally challenged person that struggles his whole life in school and ends up getting a highschool diploma. His mental and physical capacity certainly aren’t superior, but his perseverence and determination are admirable. Certainly greater than those with able mind and body that drop out of high school. He is “great” because he chose to be great in the way that he could. GW Bush buys and sells people, declares wars, sings treaties and contracts that affect entire nations. Is he “great” because he was born into a rich family, sent to the right schools, given opportunities that he capitalized on? If you don’t like Bush then replace him with your favorite president of the last 100 years. He may have done great things in office, but he had the capacity and the means to do those things. That doesn’t make him great, it makes him human. He chose his path and did the best he could, that’s what makes him great. The legnth or width of the path doesn’t matter, that’s just the frame for the picture that you decide to put in it. Any frame can hold a beautiful picture.

5

Ha! Egotism as a symptom? I love it. :smiley:

6

I don’t know if you’ve ever heard of ‘modernity’, but you just sprouted a modern idea. As a general rule, modern ideas are loathsome.

Yes, it’s a word that enlightened people use to describe themselves and each other. Any other use of the word ‘enlightened’ is only a matter of belief.

Considering that most people have no clue what enlightenment is, this is a silly question.

Modern man values humility all too highly. Ask yourself: why is it good for a great man to be humble? why should he act as though he’s no better than an ordinary bonehead? Would that not be perverse?

  1. If you claim to be Christ, you’re not enlightened.
  2. Enlightenment is more the lack of belief. It’s a matter of discovering, working out the truth of the world for yourself.

No. The vast majority of people are too dumb to ever become enlightened. Rare experience would only make them more ignorant.

I consider ‘something great’ to be in the order of writing Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Obviously, not everyone could do something like that.

A great man is someone who accomplishes great tasks. Not someone who does well at ordinary tasks.

7

A great man is someone who accomplishes great tasks. Not someone who does well at ordinary tasks.
[/quote]

I completely disagree with pretty much every opinion you have voiced on this subject, so Im not even going to bother going through your post and disecting it…I’d be here all day. I mean, saying things like a majority of people are “too dumb” to become enlightened, humility is over rated, enlightenment is a ‘lack’ of belief, etc. All of those statements are unfounded and kind of ridiculous to me.

Who are you to judge what people are smart enough, or too dumb, to become enlightened?

Humility is valued highly because of how rare it is. Anyone can do something great and not bother with humility…that’s easy. Being humble is a show of strong character and greatness in itself. It takes a great individual to accomplish great things, yet still realize he is no more or less of a person than anyone else. To set people apart based on the weight of their actions is perverse. Denying what you are fundamentally is perverse. A person that does something “great” is still fundamentally a person, his strengths and weaknesses, no matter how great, won’t change that. To say “I’m not a person like everyone else, I’m a GREAT person” is denying that you are fundamentally a person that is equal to every other person when you are brought into the world. You don’t become any ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than others as you grow, you become an individual. But still a person just like everyone else. It takes a great man to do great things and realize that.

To say enlightenment is a lack of belief is contradictory. Enlightenment in itself is a belief. The paths to enlightenment are beliefs. The state of enlightenment is a belief. The ablility to reach enlightenment is a belief. In order to be ‘enlightened’, you must first believe in enlightenment, and then you have to believe that you, yourself, are enlightented. Otherwise ‘enlightenment’ would just be a state of being with no definition.

That last quote of yours is no more than an opinion being stated as if it were fact. Who decides what tasks are ‘great’? Who decides which way of accomplishing a given task is ‘great’? A great task can be an ordinary task…great and ordinary are not contradictory as you would have us believe. Pulling people out of burning buildings is an ordinary task for a firefighter, but to the people involved it is a great task. The terms “great” and “ordinary” are so subjective that your statement cannot logically make sense. There is no universal rule as to who or what is “great”.