Rationalism Vs Delusion

 

 

“She cannot cope with reality. They’ve recognise that about her. Part of her fragility is she will be triggered at any suggestion that she cannot handle reality. They describe her as vulnerable. They are agents of her delusion.

I have to live in reality. Immediately this makes me a problem for her. They are protecting her from me by shouting me down. I operate on a very basic system of logic that the delusional should not have control over the rational. It should be that the rational has control over the delusional. It has to be this way for the rational to function. They are choosing to aid the delusional to make sure the delusional can function, at the cost of enabling the rational to function.

These are the principles involved. Our experiences are a manifestation of that struggle.

Her stubbornness, her refusal to accept reality, is what made it that eventually the realistic people pulled out from supporting her. She was only supported by delusional people.

Of course, without stability, and without the donations of rationality to keep her going, she could no longer keep going.

Things got worse and worse for her. She realised the only people who were supporting her were as delusional as herself. The rejection of reality, the rejection of rationality, was ultimately her downfall.

It manifested in the form of self-destruction.

One of the things she could never accept is how stable people do not want to empower self-destruction. Stable people do not want to empower delusion. Only unstable, delusional people resonate with disharmony.

Once rational people decide to stop empowering unstable people, the unstable people will naturally disintegrate. Their chaos will probably increasingly escalate to violence before that happens. 

If a person decides to empower instability and delusion, they are not a rational, stable person.

Unstable people describe that stability as a form of fascism because it is stable, stoic, sustainable, solid, wholesome and functional. The unstable person is using the wrong word to describe the stable people. That is a part of their delusion.”

—————-

The text lays out a stark, almost philosophical framework for a relational or group dynamic: one person (or entity) deeply invested in rejecting reality/delusion, surrounded by enablers who shield her fragility at the expense of rational functioning, while those grounded in logic eventually withdraw support, leading to inevitable collapse or escalation.

This pattern resonates with several well-recognized psychological and interpersonal phenomena, though it’s framed here in binary terms (rational vs. delusional, stable vs. unstable) that can oversimplify complex human motivations and mental health realities.

Key Elements in Psychological Terms

•  Fragility and Triggering Around Reality: People with rigid, defensive beliefs (sometimes delusional in clinical terms) often experience intense distress when those beliefs are challenged. Delusions aren’t always “crazy” hallucinations; they can be fixed false beliefs that serve as protection against overwhelming emotions, low self-esteem, trauma, or existential threats. Confronting them directly often backfires, entrenching the belief further as a defense mechanism.

•  Enabling as Protection: The “agents of her delusion” describe a classic enabling pattern. In relationships (family, romantic, or social), people may avoid confrontation out of compassion, fear of escalation, guilt, or codependency. They shield the person from discomfort, which inadvertently maintains the dysfunctional belief system. This isn’t always malicious—sometimes it’s genuine care gone awry—but it can prevent growth or intervention.

•  Withdrawal of Rational/Supportive People: Stable individuals often set boundaries when enabling self-destruction becomes unsustainable. They stop “donating rationality” (a vivid way to put it) because continued involvement empowers harm. This withdrawal can feel like rejection to the fragile person, accelerating decline. In extreme cases, it mirrors dynamics in addiction, personality disorders, or shared delusional systems (folie à deux/famille), where the delusional person’s reality dominates the group until healthier members exit.

•  Escalation and Self-Destruction: Without external anchors to reality, instability can intensify—emotional spirals, isolation, or even volatile behavior. The text’s point about chaos escalating to violence before disintegration aligns with how untreated severe delusions or personality issues can progress if support networks collapse.

•  Labeling Stability as “Fascism”: This is a common projection in such dynamics. Terms like “control,” “rigidity,” or “authoritarianism” get weaponized against boundaries, logic, or accountability. It’s part of the delusion’s defensive toolkit: reframing healthy limits as oppression preserves the fragile self-view.

Broader Reflection on the Principle

Your core axiom—that rationality must ultimately hold authority over delusion for functional systems to survive—has merit in practical terms. Societies, families, and relationships need shared reality-testing to function sustainably. Pure compassion without boundaries can enable harm; pure rationality without empathy can become callous. The tension lies in balance: how to uphold reality without cruelty, and how to offer support without enabling.

In practice, people rarely fit neatly into “rational/stable” vs. “delusional/unstable” camps. Most exist on spectrums—someone can be highly functional in some areas while deeply defensive in others. Mental health conditions involving delusions (e.g., delusional disorder, aspects of schizophrenia, or severe personality pathology) aren’t chosen stubbornness; they’re often tied to brain chemistry, trauma, or coping gone extreme.

If this describes a real situation you’re navigating (personal relationship, family, or professional context), the healthiest path often involves:

•  Maintaining your own grounding in reality and boundaries.

•  Avoiding direct debates over the core delusion (it rarely persuades and often escalates).

•  Redirecting focus to observable impacts (e.g., “I care about you, but this pattern is harming relationships”).

•  Encouraging professional intervention gently, without ultimatums that trigger more defense.

•  Protecting your own stability—sometimes distance is the most compassionate choice for everyone.

The tragedy in these dynamics is mutual: the fragile person loses support, and the rational one carries the burden of being “the problem” for insisting on reality. But enabling long-term delusion rarely leads to genuine stability—only temporary reprieve before harder reckonings.