So much for not mincing words. You know full well, as does everybody else that reads this thread, that I was not talking about stabbing someone in defense of ones family. Yet you insist on mincing words over it.
Solace, I have pointed out that the act of stabbing itself does not constitue for an act being "right" or "wrong". There was no mincing words involved.
Since I have to clarify what I said, because either you're incapable of understanding (unlikely) or you're just being antagonizing (most likely), let me rephrase; stabbing someone for no good reason is a what, it is a something you do, it doesn't matter how you stab them.
Solace, perhaps you should wonder why you are being so unfriendly. The thing of it is that from my point of view it is not I, but you who clearly does not understand. I think you know that as well, because you are refuting yourself. You feel it is necessary to explain how the stabbing was done (for no good reason) and then refute that by saying how it was done is inconsequential. Apparently it is important because you needed to point to how it was done.
Treating each other as you would have them treat you is something that you do. A how is never something that you do, only a what is. This is simple stuff, so I can't figure for the life of me why you're fussing over it.
No, it is not simple stuff. Some very complicated books have been written about this. You just don't look further than what you think you know. Perhaps it is time to try to understand that the surface of things is not really important. Just like an apple itself is not "good"; it is something about the apple which can be "good".
The example I gave was not a psychosis. It was a person exhibiting poor judgement. If everyone who exhibits poor judgement is psychotic then we all are.
It is not poor judgement that I was calling psychosis, but judgement itself. A judgement is something which exists solely within the person judging; meaning that, in the example "salmon tastes nice", "nice" is not a quality of the object (salmon). It is a judgement of the one eating the salmon. Although something of the salmon has the effect of "tasting nice" to the one eating the salmon, the judgement "nice" does not exist in the salmon, but in the one eating the salmon. When one believes that this "nice" does exist in the salmon one is mixing up the workings in ones mind with the workings in reality. That is exacly what a psychosis is. So, your example of the poor judgement is in fact psychosis and to answer your question: "Yes, each and every human suffers from it". It is what is known as the human condition
. The term itself is subject to several distinct interpretations, but for our discussion I think this will suffice.
Anyway, every person judges and is therefore suffering from psychosis. The amount and how serious the psychosis varies from person to person. Perhaps Buddha and Jezus had very few psychosis, if they really existed. But that would be another discussion.
Oh and I know full well why you have a more optimistic view of people than I do, cause you're living in a fantasy world. Demonstrated entirely by your conclusion that the example of the politician I gave was a description of psychosis.
No, I do not think so. I think I have a more optimistic view of people because we both judge people by thinking about why we would act the way others do; we judge people on the knowledge of ourselves. People fear the unknown because they know themselves only too well.