The farmer has a lot of ideas about what it would have been like to leave or do something different and why there was no point in doing so. Having never left, these ideas are not based in experience, and there is likely an element of self-justification. It is very very common for people to come up with reasons to justify their choices. To the extent that these reasons are unexamined and not evidence-based, they are deluded. That doesn’t make them bad or even ineffective, just not fully based in reality.
It’s likely mild, and he’s likely genuinely happy with his life despite.
Indeed, they are rationalizations. Whether out of fear of the unknown or attachment to what he has. Our cognitive bias is such that losing something feels worse than gaining. I think some are more or less novelty-seeking by nature, but the environment around you has an impact.
If I think of it as a strategy it makes more sense, i.e. "doing the same thing has worked well and will probably continue to do well, so I'll continue to bet on it". That hardly demands all the extra pre-conceived notions, but people view challenges to their ideas as a threat when they've made them part of their identity.
A bird not flying outside it’s habitat is not delusion. Likewise any animal.
Just because there’s this modern idea that you need to travel and sample (trample on) everything, doesn’t make it more rational. Will going to Mars do anything for happiness? You haven’t been, you can’t know! That’s a fallacy, I’m not sure what, but it’s a fallacy because we know animals are adapted to their environment. We also are pretty good at knowing if we’re feeling alright.
You’re confusing scientism with reality. You can’t begin to claim to be right about some scientific thing without having explored a lot. But happiness can be found locally, in total ignorance. Your dog knows this. Only a human could confuse something like that through the curse of knowledge and modern culture.
What I will say is this man is rich. Not everyone, in fact almost no one, can afford to buy a farm in a beautiful area that’s surrounded by people and culture you like, with a temperate climate and natural beauty. He’s very lucky.
It's not the fact that he doesn't leave that's delusional, it's all the ideas he has about leaving that can't be based in reality as he has not experienced them.
It's similar to anyone who has strong opinions about something that they don't have evidence (scientific or experiential) to support.
Again, the delusion isn't that he's happy with what he has, it's that he appears to have some strong opinions about what it's like to, for example, live in London having never been there. A more evidence-based position might be "I'm happy with what I have and have no inclination to see or do anything else".
He seems to be saying people have told him as much, or he's heard as much. It’s not like he’s stating it strongly either, I think mostly he’s just making conversation.
It sounds like you're reacting strongly to the word delusional, and it may be my mistake for using a word that often comes with such strong negative connotations.
My intended meaning was that there are beliefs here that aren't and can't be grounded in reality. Not necessarily more than other people tend to hold, but in the context of this article, which I thought romanticized the man's viewpoint a bit, it seemed relevant to pick up on.
Saying that bringing up the word delusion is delusional seems a little unkind in this context, though I think you're right that a milder term would fit better.
It’s likely mild, and he’s likely genuinely happy with his life despite.