|
Megalomania: very dangerous?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| mndeg |
Cheney, Mao, Hitler, are a few people who I could think of who displayed characteristics of Megalomania. Megalomaniacs don't care about anyone but themselves, if a few people million die because of their actions, they feel no remorse. I would think that key neo-cons are megalomaniacs.
Oh yeah, Ghenghis Khan was a Megalomaniac too, he wanted to conquer the world.
Perhaps worldwide we should test for personality disorders so these guys don't come into power yeah?
---
Oh and Jesus and Mohamed said that a divine spoke to them and and them only. In this day and age we call that schizophrenia and we lock them up or give them meds.
Is all major strife in this world due to the mentally ill? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by mndeg
Cheney, Mao, Hitler, are a few people who I could think of who displayed characteristics of Megalomania. Megalomaniacs don't care about anyone but themselves, if a few people million die because of their actions, they feel no remorse. I would think that the whole neo-conservative ideology reeks of the disorder.
Oh yeah, Ghenghis Khan was a Megalomaniac too, he wanted to conquer the world.
Perhaps worldwide we should test for personality disorders so these guys don't come into power yeah? |
jeez where does one begin....?
IMO, just by definition of the office Dick Cheney holds and how he came to be in said office disqualifies him as having megalomania. although i'm pretty sure he thinks fairly highly of himself, i think you should better understand the nuances between being an idealogue and suffering from megalomania.
Oh yeah, anyone that runs for high office in government i think should be considered a megalomaniac to some degree.
IOW it's fairly obvious to me that you should maybe find better words to describe the people you hate or at least catagorize them a little smarter because "killing people" aren't actions soley attributed to persons who are megalomaniacs. there's usually other stuff going on in their heads as well.
for example:
this joker could easily be described as a megalomaniac or an idealogue |
|
|
| mndeg |
| quote: | | IMO, just by definition of the office Dick Cheney holds and how he came to be in said office disqualifies him as having megalomania. |
explain?
| quote: | | Megalomania (from the Greek word μεγαλομανία) is a historical term for behavior characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, genius, or omnipotence - often generally termed as delusions of grandeur or grandiose delusions. |
Uh, what do you call the general belief in neo-conservatism?
There is science that backs Al Gore's belief in global warming, it doesn't matter if Gore thinks highly of himself.
Mao's actions resulted in the deaths of millions of Chinese, and what he said was he was a terrible economist. Cheney's decisions resulted (so far) in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and thousands of American lives. He seems to have no remorse.
Megalomania is associated with bipolar disorder and Hitler had huge mood swings. I don't really want to go into how all of the people I stated showed signs of whatever, look it up yourself if you want to explore the hypothesis. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by mndeg
explain? |
well for starters he wasn't originally interested in being W's running mate. it took some convincing. two, it's the office of Vice President. hardly a platform to megalomanize from, you know?
| quote: | | Uh, what do you call the general belief in neo-conservatism? |
neo-conservatism means a lot of things to a lot of people. tell me what you think neo-conservatism is and maybe we can assuage some sort of mental disorder from it. then maybe we could go on to describe other "general beliefs" as megalomania.
| quote: | | There is science that backs Al Gore's belief in global warming, it doesn't matter if Gore thinks highly of himself. |
:haha: i think democracy has proven to be immencely more reliable in practice than whatever science Al Gore uses to come to his conclusions.
| quote: | | He seems to have no remorse. |
how do you know that? could there be other reasons he acts the way he does? |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
I suggest reading a biography of Genghis Khan - he was hardly the bloodthirsty megalomaniac you assume. He viewed his life as carried by fate - uniting the Mongol tribes, punishing insolence in the Kara Kum, etc. He murdered people out of what he saw as tactical necessity - by killing the family of your enemies, you've eliminated the threat of vengeance.
In any case, the Mongols instituted the first semi-democratic state since Rome (and the first that practiced religious freedom). Genghis built synagogues, churches, mosques, and temples for Confucianism and Buddhism. Though he wrought havoc throughout Central Asia, he was actually a fairly interesting guy who I wouldn't use the word megalomaniac to describe. |
|
|
| Aortik |
Every man seeks to either destroy or assimilate his fellow man so that he can copulate with his fellow woman. That's sort of the point of almost every human endeavor, especially the ones you can cite through recorded history.
In this sense, we are all megalomaniacal, as the essence of competition for survival is deeply ingrained in our biology. The current state of our society lends itself to supporting a particular breed of warlord, slightly different than times past, but essentially the same.
Even people who preach things such as love and compassion and forgiveness, demagogues of religions and preachers of morality, all seek a slice of the pie - we have developed [in some ways] past our tendency to murder all opposition, as assimilating - devouring - has proven to be a more effective method of defeating polar ideologies due to stigmas we have fabricated on slaughter... or at least slaughter we can see.
Not to say that wholesale murder does not occurr, that couldn't be farther from the truth. But bloodlust and a will to dominate is not something uncommon amongst males of every species and is most certainly not a disorder in any strict sense of the word. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
The first three on the list, perhaps.
| quote: | Originally posted by mndeg
Megalomaniacs don't care about anyone but themselves, if a few people million die because of their actions, they feel no remorse. I would think that key neo-cons are megalomaniacs. |
By that description, most people would be megalomaniacs or at least minimally insane. Add denial as a substitute to "feeling no remorse"... that would include much of the world population, at least in developed countries. The difference is feeling no remorse with knowledge and feeling no remorse as a function of ignorance, willful or otherwise.
| quote: | Originally posted by mndeg
Oh yeah, Ghenghis Khan was a Megalomaniac too, he wanted to conquer the world. |
Barbaric, perhaps... megalomaniacal, as Leb clearly pointed out, no.
| quote: | Originally posted by mndeg
Perhaps worldwide we should test for personality disorders so these guys don't come into power yeah? |
Devised by who, you? A central authority? The state?
| quote: | Originally posted by mndeg
Oh and Jesus and Mohamed said that a divine spoke to them and and them only. In this day and age we call that schizophrenia and we lock them up or give them meds. |
That statement alone shows that you are clearly insane, highly ignorant of anything outside your secular bubble (maintained by a fair bit of coercion and brutality both passively and deliberately ignored), at the very least suffer from conformation bias any narrow minded or minimally bigoted individual would.
In the first case, you're assuming the existence of a man who isn't even proven to exist (not that I'm saying he didn't, but not necessarily the egypto-roman-greek version of him that bears little resemblance to the actual semitic figure who may have existed). In the case of the former, a spectacular display of ignorance of world history beyond the Western world is blatantly evident.
| quote: | Originally posted by mndeg
Is all major strife in this world due to the mentally ill? |
If you care to analyze the principles the world operates on, and the institutions that are allowed to operate, it should be quite apparent that most of the world is insane, or has no remorse... pitiful selfish creatures and sad excuses for human beings.
It's would be amusing if it weren't so sad... when secular zealots and bigots project their insecurities, sounding much like their counterpart religious nuts. There's nothing more ironic than noticing a reflection of insanity through a different lens. |
|
|
| Aortik |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
In the case of the former, a spectacular display of ignorance of world history beyond the Western world is blatantly evident. |
Wait, I thought it was pretty general knowledge that Mohamed claimed to be visited by an archangel in one of his lengthy and meditative cave-sits. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
I've thought about it this before also.
I think that perhaps psychology is relative to your culture and epoch. What I mean by that is that we assume everyone else throughout history has cognated the same as we do, and it simply is not so.
As a matter of fact, I would go so far as to say that psychological evolution would leave most other recent cultures relatively mentally ill in our view. Take the egyptians for example; there are theories that they all "suffered" from a state of schizophrenia.
The fact is, however, that they didn't suffer from anything, it was their social norm and they worked with it. They were closer to nature to us, and thus instinct played a more vital role in their consciousness than the cultural conscious we have in play today.
I think our world suffers from a great number of mental illnesses as cultural collectives. We're jung and still growing, however, and hopefully will sort it out. If not, then we weren't meant to be.
One thing I will add is that drugs play a huge role on the development of specie. And for humans, the last 2000 years at least has been mired in one drug: alcohol. Imagine the effects of it now, the meanness and the irrationality, and draw the connection to our modern mess. |
|
|
| Audigy7 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Shibby
One thing I will add is that drugs play a huge role on the development of specie. And for humans, the last 2000 years at least has been mired in one drug: alcohol. Imagine the effects of it now, the meanness and the irrationality, and draw the connection to our modern mess. |
For the most part, I agree with you up until this point, but I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to argue. Are you trying to say that Alcohol is a contributing factor to the nature of modern society to such a distinct level that society would be entirely different without it and its effects? If so, in what way? I can buy that argument with LSD and it's role in the counter-culture of the late 60's, but not to the extent I think you're trying to argue.
Also, why did you use the word 'specie' instead of 'human'? Are you trying to argue drugs play a role in the evolution of any other species besides human? |
|
|
|
|
