joelsephus wrote:
You see, that is exactly what is at issue here. I understand that the general usage of the word "illusion" implies false belief. But that is not the way Freud used it, and I'm coming to the point where I don't think I necessarily need to use it that way either. I'm thinking that to follow his lead here would provide a whole new and very useful sense of the word. After all, that's how good words come to be - there's an idea that can't be expressed without all kinds of explanations and examples, and then someone comes along and pins that idea to a specific word and it eventually becomes accepted as legitimate. I think that it would be much better to do this with the word "illusion" rather than make up a random word of my own, since the path has already been cut by a well known author and since this word already carries at least a similar meaning. As I am sure many of you can already tell, I am not exactly a conservative linguaphile.
All I'm suggesting is that "delusion" is closer to your meaning than is "illusion" if you're willing to overlook the requirement that the belief must be false. Fowler's definition of "delusion" that says it "has been surrendered to and accepted by the whole mind as the truth" is very close to your desire for a word that expresses "believing in something simply because you want to believe it." The word "illusion," on the other hand, implies something that is believed in because of some trick of the senses.
I don't think that Freud's use of the word "illusion" necessarily gives it any greater authority. Didn't he write originally in German, and wouldn't the use of the word "illusion" have been chosen by a translator, not by Freud?
