| Show Warranted fear is not paranoia Imagine if you will the following situation: a group of your colleagues are negatively discussing an organization you head A friend of youn hears this discussion and immediately tells you Your reaction is to immediately call the individuals and give them apiece of your mind Because of your actions people describe you as paranoid Are you are maybe! you? Great-scAmerican Heritage Dictionary defines paranoia as "unreasonable distrust exaggeration of ones between the ages of 40-5- 5 Very rarely is the life of the patient ever in disarray Individuals who have the disorder handle themselves adequately at work and at social gatherings The illness can be experienced for a long or short time It is also common for it to be gone for several months and then to cone back The disorder is slightly more common in womyn than it is in men Depression is also a common symptom of the disorder However depression is usually mild in nature Finally there is yet another diagnosis one can receive It is called "Paranoid Ideation" This is used as a diagnosis only if the psychologist believes the individual is not suffering from delusions importance" this Now that you can pass your next psychology test I think it is important to to According definition though discuss the way society deals with the perception of paranoia aren't we all a little Hardly anyone in American society would agree with let alone believe in the above definition of paranoia Society thinks paranoia is a terrible disease paranoid? I think Those who suffer cannot be cured they are evil and they always think so If we look this someone is after them This is wrong and foully untrue Those that are dictionary defini-tio- n victimized can be cured they are not evil This however is not the point at face value then accusations of paranoia would be true no one Paranoia exists only when somebody has deiusiom of persecution If there are need feel guilty for calling someone paranoid But I do not think we valid reasons for the belief or fear then the person is not paranoid should use this definition in evaluating paranoia In today's society Julius Caesar would be considered paranoid even though The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is used by the refer than Rather he to was murdered by 13 different men Joan of Ark would be called psychotic mental shortcomings psychologists to diagnose even though she was burned to death and the Jews during WWII were illness as simple paranoia the manual labels the illness "Delusional Disorder" It is diagnosed only after organic factors have been exexaggerating the Holocaust Warranted fear does not equal paranoia Of course the paranoid defend their cluded The illness is independent of any other illness The description is ironic paranoid behavior is neither bizarre nor obviously odd delusions as fact They really believe they are being persecuted Maybe they The most common theme is are right and maybe noL Who are you to decide their mental health? Who The disorder is divided into died and made you Sigmund Freud? Nobody "Persecutory Type" The individual suffering from this illness has delusions dealing with elaborate schemes such as being conspired Psychologisu agree that paranoid behavior is neither odd nor bizaire against harassed cheated spied upon or lied too These individuals are American society has long misunderstood paranoid behavior Nobody can decide who is or who is not paranoid What we should be concentrating on is often resentful and angry and may turn to violent confrontations to our own psychosis not somebody else's What kind of mental sute are you in solve their delusion if you call somebody paranoid and you have no proof? I say a state of denial Most people who suffer from Delusional Disorder are diagnosed ot sub-them- es 1 Morality: where did it go? Our society is faced with a plethora of questions and problems each day that lest the moral foundations of the individual as well as society as a whole Questions and problems ranging from the morality of abortion rights to euthanasia as a humane alternative to a life plagued by pain or even the somewhat "simpler" question of paper or plastic? From every direction one is bombarded with questions of right and wrong responsibility and irresponsibility The majority of us know that something is right or wrong but do we know why something is right or wrong? Granted some questions are easy like is murder just or unjust But other questions have been hotly debated for hundreds of years 1 1 and will continue ” iry for years to come We live in a heterogeneous society meaning there are a diversity of cultures religions and individual interests While that makes society much more interesting it opens the door for a wave of disagreement and conflict The founding fathers saw the potential for this diversity so they wrote the Constitution to fit a Federalist governmental structure in which states can express the subjectivity of their populous to the national assembly It is this passage of the individuid's voice through local to national government that has allowed "democracy" and "stability" in America to survive 200 years This places the responsibility on the individual to voice his or her opinion in government to ensure their interests are protected and considered If this voice is not expressed the results and a heterogeneous majority current situation of is ruled by a homogeneous minority So what constitutes right and wrong? Many philosophers have wrestled with this question for thousands of years German philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote that we live our life according to a universal code of morality he called the Categorical Imperative This imperative rests on two planks: first that one should always treat others as an end and never as a means to our own selfish ends and secondly that one should always act so as to will our action as universal law— simply put do not use people and be a good example Others such as John Stuart Mill proposed a "Harm to J Others Principle" meaning that an action is just until it infringes on the safety of others or oneself This is the basis of modem laws of paternalism which are designed to protect people from themselves While both of these are strong proposals and the basis for many laws I think the question of right and wrong is simpler The Earth and the inhabitants therein are part of a unique cycle (the only one of its kind as far as we know in the universe) so actions are good as long as they preserve and continue this unique cycle of events I feel the decision of what is right and wrong should be vested in the majority of the people because as Mill wrote "ojn questions of social morality of duty to others the opinion of the public that is of an overruling majority though often wrong is likely to be still oftencr right" But where docs the minority fit in? Well if they feel the actions of the majority are unjust they can dissent from that opinion or civilly disobey to express discontent to keep the scales of checks and balance equal Ihat is why participation in a democratic government is so important because issues of morality and law are decided by the majority Problems arise when a society's most important aspect their moral foundation evolves at a lesser pace than another aspect of society America is facing countless problems today because of this tip in the scales For example the surge of violence on the streets recently is due to a lack of responsibility and respect towards human life Also technology is definitely evolving at a faster pace than our responsibility— we as a society are wrestling with the morality of new social advancements like fetal gene manipulation and virtual reality while just recently grasping the immorality of environmental degradation 100 years after the beginning of the Industrial Revolution Our moral foundations need to be strong enough to withstand challenges to their legitimacy but subjective enough to evolve with the changing times and unique situations The Bible never accounted for nuclear weapons The complication of the question arises when governments try to decide the morality of the individual without the individual's consent For example the recent fight over abortion rights is being decided not by the people it affects but by unelected members of the Supreme Court in Washington DC Questions of morality in laws definitely need to be decided through an absolute democracy approach of one person one vote As we face a new era of questions and problems we should come to realize the importance of questioning that which we do not understand because we will never understand that which is not questioned Asking why ensures we will be able to evolve adapt and survive Evolution is not just physical or even mental but also ethical Letter to the Editor Which is more important: protecting the refs or players? Dear editor A sudden outburst in the funding of the CEU cops has raised some questions in the minds of CEU students after last Saturday night Additional funding has bought them a new "pursuit" vehicle guns and funding to pay for 11 campus cops However at a basketball game on Feb S a fight broke out between a CEU player and the Ricks College team It continued for a good two minutes and where were our campus cops? No where to be found until coach Stubbs and the rest of the coaches and fans were able to get the situation under con troL Then in walk the cops to come to the rescue a little late All the money certification and resources that it has taken to supply these guys with the proper uniforms car badges walkie-talki- e and even guns have taught them nothing more than to disappear when a fight breaks out As anyone could tell this was the most physical game CEU had played all year There was a lot of pushing and shoving in addition to the trash talking that included racial comments from Ricks' players A fight or confrontation was inevitable Many fans in the stands knew something was going to happen except the supposed "experts" The coaches' job is not to break up fights That is not what he gets paid for that is apart of what the CEU cops get paid for One witness said the three campus cops on duty that night were escorting the three referees to their locker room when the fight broke out and were unaware there were any problems Therefore I ask why are the campus cops visibly posted throughout the BDAC gym during the game but become invisible when the game is over? Who is more important the players or the referees? Respectfully Dirk Keyes C( Letter to the editor policy Typewritten letters under 300 words are preferred and given priority in printing All letters must have the author's full name and phone number where heshe can be reached The editor will grant anonymity of opinions under special circumstances |
