So, W, you admit you're delusional. You just keep it on perspective. I knew John Nash, btw, when he was the Ghost of Fine Hall. jks
That makes all the difference in the world. We are all partly delusional, in a Kantian sense - by inserting, so to speak, our apriori forms into our perceptions and "seeing" those forms as a part of outside reality. Philosophers and the assorted gang are no different in that respect than the common folk. The difference is that philsophers often know that they are doing it, whereas the common folk do not - they tend to think that they see things as they are.
This was the crux of my argument against Kelley's insinuations that I see my cognitive processes differently than those of the other folks. The point was that I do react to propagandistic messages pretty much in the same way as the common folk, but I can frame them differently than many of these folks, and also bracket them out and reflect on their epistemological status, whereas most common folks do not bother. That is to say, I react to, say, images of cruelty, suffering, and tyranny pretty much the same way as most common folks do. Where different folks part ways is how these images are being congnitively framed: some of them reduce their impact by framing them in a racist framework i.e. brown-skinned people's suffering is lesser than that of the white skinned foks (as superbly illustrated by George Orwell in _Marrakech_) , other frame it in a manichaean/Hollowoodian narrative of the struggle between light and darkness, good and evil, and call for acrusade against evil, and still other question its epistemological validity by "deconstructing" i.e. framing it as a constructed narrative intended to produce the effect that most folks are experiencing in the first place.
Wojtek