"If everything was 100% mathematical accuracy, things wouldn't be surprising and fun. You would always know you'd get it right."
100% accuracy would introduce some interesting paradoxes and knowledge, like knowing how to consciously surprise yourself, or how to make things you don't find enjoyable more fun than anything you've ever experienced, although in math terms that might be in league with dividing by zero.
"I can only imagine this as some mental deviance."
The idea of a situation where they don't see it's not real after the fact would mean they've only known that false reality (or it was convincingly introduced into the world they once knew), or something would stop them from sobering out of it. Beyond mental illness or achieving death on drugs, I don't see it coming up too often. (At least back in DSM IV, they refused to believe in Unipolar Mania, figuring the crash was an inevitability.)
"Growth towards what? Whats the point of growing, if you have achieved your needs?"
Achieved for how long? What's to stop something from taking away what you have? What's to stop those needs from changing? Growth happens in a variety of fashions, even if that growth is simply growing bored with having everything you thought you once wanted.
Possessing the means of acquiring what you want is far superior to simply having it, as you at the very least can be secure in knowing it won't go anywhere unless you want it to. Growth is from experience, as opposed to something you can buy or sell. Someone who never had to develop into someone who can get the things they want would arguably have more trouble keeping or reacquiring it should a stroke of bad luck turn up.
I guess in a sense growth is both strength and insurance, while having your needs met is simply comfort for the time being.
"Perhaps you can find a better way to get your needs, or get better quality of those needs, etc. But is it worth it, to risk it all for that?"
I don't understand what you're meaning here.
"Because if we imagine someone is happy in a delusion, is it worth the risk to get over the delusion?"
I'd argue a yes more often than a no. Delusion usually carries it's share of problems that outweigh the happiness that may be felt.
"What if real life is shit for this person? He would be weak in real life."
Seeing the real world would give a chance to grow stronger in the face of adversity.
"But he doesn't live there, not in his mind."
But to everyone else it'd be a display of a very obvious weakness. Unless blind to opposition, it'd likely lead to social stress that could push the delusional individual into isolation, thoughts on conspiracy, psychotic breakdowns, or even turn the delusions darker, into something plaguing and unhappy instead of sunshine and giggles.
I think people are entitled to knowledge and answers, at the very least to make their delusions sound more believable in discussion, and the risk that is posed from having your own world view shatter would be a worthy one in the name of advancing the self. Why remain ignorant if you have the option not to be? It's pointless, but to not do so is both pointless and unfortunate.
"Nothing is perfect."
It still shows how it doesn't promote strength, merely defends what is there. Someone who is content however could choose to not need further strength. Strength is an attribute, it's power, force, the product of past experience and natural traits, not a measurement for quality of life.
"You need to be able to accept the consequences of your actions, when youfail. Not that you need to be obsessively thinking about it... Just when it happens, you should be content with it, on the inside. Sure think about a way out, act out to other people if it helps to fix the situation, but if it doesn't work, do not break down over it."
Well yeah, that's resilience (usually, could be apathy), which itself is a strength, but how often does someone reach a point where they can face failure without prior growth beforehand? It's rare to be born apathetic toward failure without having the reason be something like depression.
"You do not need to over think it. Consider it a possibility."
I was just curious on your thoughts, as that conviction through denying doubt factor comes up a surprising amount in discussion with some people, whether it's expressed literally or passively through their actions.
"This only matters if the person values his logic. Which would often be the case, but not always. There are people who just don't care."
I suppose why they don't care becomes the variable worth looking at. It could be the symptom of other problems.
"Achieved for how long? What's to stop something from taking away what you have? What's to stop those needs from changing? Growth happens in a variety of fashions, even if that growth is simply growing bored with having everything you thought you once wanted."
Once you lose them, you have to work to get them back. Sure you can leave some options for growth, but do you really need to follow these options, until you fall? All you need to ensure is a back up plan, so you can deal with failure easier.
"Possessing the means of acquiring what you want is far superior to simply having it, as you at the very least can be secure in knowing it won't go anywhere unless you want it to. Growth is from experience, as opposed to something you can buy or sell. Someone who never had to develop into someone who can get the things they want would arguably have more trouble keeping or reacquiring it should a stroke of bad luck turn up."
This would be situation. If this someone keeps the ability to receive what they want without working as hard as others, they are still getting their way, regardless of the method and thats what really matters.
"I guess in a sense growth is both strength and insurance, while having your needs met is simply comfort for the time being. "
In the way you describe it, i agree and i see strength just as that, getting what you want and being able to deal with failure . If you need some kind of insurance to deal with failure, then you should get it. Its subjective...
"I don't understand what you're meaning here."
nvm, its irrelevant
"I'd argue a yes more often than a no. Delusion usually carries it's share of problems that outweigh the happiness that may be felt."
yes, it usually does. i cant really think of a practical example when it doesnt right now. maybe only in science fiction.
"Seeing the real world would give a chance to grow stronger in the face of adversity."
its just a chance to live in a different environment that requires a different skill set. i guess it would make you stronger, since now you can live in more environments, but whats the point, if you can just live great in the other environment? unless you get bored in that case you have a different 'need/want' for change, your environment wont be satisfying you anymore.
"But to everyone else it'd be a display of a very obvious weakness. Unless blind to opposition, it'd likely lead to social stress that could push the delusional individual into isolation, thoughts on conspiracy, psychotic breakdowns, or even turn the delusions darker, into something plaguing and unhappy instead of sunshine and giggles."
In which case, you need to change something, as you are not getting what you want, you are getting negative results. But if you are blind to opposition, you could be fine.
"I think people are entitled to knowledge and answers, at the very least to make their delusions sound more believable in discussion, and the risk that is posed from having your own world view shatter would be a worthy one in the name of advancing the self. Why remain ignorant if you have the option not to be? It's pointless, but to not do so is both pointless and unfortunate."
People are not entitled to anything. The rest is a personal choice and perhaps it is better to choose reality, but there is no real reason to do it, not an objective one. I would always tell people the reality regardless, because thats how things are. They need to either be able to get over their delusion or make their delusion more powerful. And i might bash them for it too, because they live in a different world while effecting my world. But in essence my disagreement doesn't make them weaker. I might tell them it does, as from my point of view it does. And they need to accept/disregard my point of view, challenge it or change.
"It still shows how it doesn't promote strength, merely defends what is there. Someone who is content however could choose to not need further strength. Strength is an attribute, it's power, force, the product of past experience and natural traits, not a measurement for quality of life."
Your personal quality of life shows how much you are capable of achieving it, aka its an measurement for your quality of life.
"Once you lose them, you have to work to get them back."
I was actually going on about how to get it back, you must have the strength to retrieve it, and that strength comes from experience. Having it and losing it does not ensure the ability to get it back.
"This would be situation. If this someone keeps the ability to receive what they want without working as hard as others, they are still getting their way, regardless of the method and thats what really matters."
And from that they end up comfortable, not strong.
"but whats the point, if you can just live great in the other environment?"
In other words, why strive for strength when you can just be comfortable? An interesting question that allows for subjective values to be its answers.
At least for myself, the point of strength is for the ability to manipulate what's around me. The ability to manipulate what's around me helps for establishing status quo. Status quo in a sense is comfort through familiarity. As for others, they may not need to worry about that, and as such, are fine with remaining weak when the demand for strength isn't present, or may find other reasons that strength is needed.
"But if you are blind to opposition, you could be fine."
It depends on the nature of the blindness and the environment they are in in real life, but yeah, they probably would be (at least in their own minds). Someone who believes hard enough that they can survive being trampled by a group of stampeding bulls can't will it to be so from sheer perspective, so in that sense it still presents dangers.
A shame I'd still probably try to burst that bubble if said blind individual encountered me, but that is really more for me than them. 
"People are not entitled to anything."
They aren't in the pure sense of things, but I still get this knee-jerk reaction when I see such a thing, my "I think" being the personal belief of my own. Even my reference of "unfortunate" is completely subjective. Of course, when I see most "objective" things as subjective at their core, suddenly certain subjective values carry the same weight.
"I would always tell people the reality regardless, because thats how things are. They need to either be able to get over their delusion or make their delusion more powerful. And i might bash them for it too, because they live in a different world while effecting my world. But in essence my disagreement doesn't make them weaker. I might tell them it does, as from my point of view it does. And they need to accept/disregard my point of view, challenge it or change."
I'm on the same page, save for the weakness point in this. I still see it as an accepted weakness in the name of defense and comfort. They (typically) would have poor control over their environment unless the delusions can be convincingly portrayed and spread.
Once conviction becomes contagious, as much as I don't call conviction strength, it becomes that once capable of creating underfoot figures. The underfoot figures lack strength, and instead latch onto those who gave them purpose.
"Your personal quality of life shows how much you are capable of achieving it, aka its an measurement for your quality of life."
Strength to me is a bit more raw than that. Strength to me is power, and power is translatable even through a variety of perspectives.
Some times if their base belief structure is bad enough, you have to tear them down before you can build them back up.
I've done it before to one of my good friends I've known for over 5 years. His counter productive perspective made him attempt suicide, but for some reason I interrupted the natural selection process and showed him his destructive behavior from an outsiders point of view. How weak he had made himself and how strength and success were obtainable.
by SystematicSome times if their base belief structure is bad enough, you have to tear them down before you can build them back up.
I've done it before to one of my good friends I've known for over 5 years. His counter productive perspective made him attempt suicide, but for some reason I interrupted the natural selection process and showed him his destructive behavior from an outsiders point of view. How weak he had made himself and how strength and success were obtainable.
"Friend", you say? Riiiight winks
I've gone through my own struggles yes, but I wouldn't attempt to take my own life.
The reason I stopped him, empathy. He was lost after a seperation with his girl, he started to pursue her even after she was far gone and away. I stopped him before he got to my level, which I take some pride in.