I hope you realize that your statement is absolutely loaded with philosophical undertones. A few examples: - Is being deluded bad? If so, what is it that mak

I hope you realize that your statement is absolutely loaded with philosophical undertones. A few examples: - Is being deluded bad? If so, what is it that makes being deluded bad? You might say "Oh come on! Of course it's bad! We can all see that!" But is that just your opinion, or is it objectively bad? If it's objectively true that I ought to have an accurately informed view of reality instead of being deluded, what is this ought-making property? What grounds it? Is it a moral duty (e.g., I ought not murder), or an intellectual duty (e.g., I ought to think Austin is the capital of Texas)? Is there a difference between moral and intellectual duties? - Why is philosophy for delusional people, instead of rational people? Surely you recognize that "philosophy is for delusional people" is itself a philosophical statement! - Being deluded assumes a theory of truth, and an epistemological theory (how we come to know what we know). You seem to know that philosophy is for delusional people -- on what grounds do you know it? What counts as justification for this belief, and how would you account for Gettier counterexamples to warrant? - I imagine you don't count all fields of study as being reserved for the delusional. What about math or science? If it is the case that math and science are legitimate sources of knowledge, but philosophy is not, how do you justify this claim? You can't prove it mathematically, or verify it in a laboratory. Thus, this scientistic view is self-refuting -- and surely that's for really delusional people!