Normal paradox

General Philosophy
1

John is normal. But John also thinks there is something wrong with him. Because he thinks there is something wrong with him despite that not being the case, he has a delusion. But because he has a delusion, he is therefore not normal.

P1: John is normal.
P2: John thinks there is something wrong with him.
P3: Thinking there is something wrong with you when there is in fact nothing wrong with you is delusional.
C: Therefore, John is not normal (because he has a delusion).

It seems that John’s being normal is crucial to his not being normal. What do you make of this supposed paradox?

I think this is somewhat related to the interesting number paradox.

2

There’s the almost hidden assumption there that if normal thinking could generate abnormal conclusions that they’re no longer normal, even though the thinking may be abnormal the person could still be normal just wrong conclusion. And vice versa. Abnormal person could generate perfectly logical thoughts.

So then a better definition of what makes normal is whether the conclusions arising from their thinking are normal rather than the implicit premise that they’re (the person) normal/not normal to begin with.