Is the Truth Useful?
I think many people here see philosophy, in a broad sense, to be a pursuit of truth. While methods to reach our conclusions may vary, many here pursue truths or facts about our reality, implying some inherent value in said truths and facts. However in reality, there are white lies or lies that are meant with good intentions, including lies by omission. The truth does not always seem like the most optimal of choices to present to people. Sometimes I have to even deceive myself to get through hard times, implying that falsehoods maybe more useful than truths.
So my question is: Are truths useful? Aren't there falsehoods that are more useful? Is the truths that you pursue(d), if you pursue(d) them, useful? If they aren't useful, do you practice philosophy knowing that finding the truth is useless? Is usefulness the correct criteria to judge if we should pursue truth?
I apologize in advance that I will not be able to reply in a timely fashion, but this has been gnawing at the back of my head for far too long.
So my question is: Are truths useful? Aren't there falsehoods that are more useful? Is the truths that you pursue(d), if you pursue(d) them, useful? If they aren't useful, do you practice philosophy knowing that finding the truth is useless? Is usefulness the correct criteria to judge if we should pursue truth?
I apologize in advance that I will not be able to reply in a timely fashion, but this has been gnawing at the back of my head for far too long.
Comments (81)
I think truth is not about philosophy but judicial moralism. If I am not wrong, philosophy was always there (apart from many criteria) to ensure and follow happiness. Truth can be just another path to get it but not the only one. You are asking why truth is useless because sometimes we need to lie... I guess this is why is important because we need to reinforce the good values despite sometimes we are not good enough.
You can see this clearly in judicial system or moralism. Truth is essential to believe in. Without it this power branch of the state collapse.
The truth will make you free...
When I lie to myself, I do feel like I am not good enough but things need to get done regardless. The value of getting my work done trumps the truth I suppose. That's an interesting way to think about it.
Quoting javi2541997
Doesn't that imply that if a falsehood can be believed in, then the truth no longer is needed?
Probably, but falsehood is not connected with believe in due to are contradictory. I guess that truth and beliefs can be a good opposition against lies. Nevertheless, is upon every individuals of how they want to acknowledge it. There are a lot of people who literally live as liars and only lying. I think this is even an illness and they need psychological help
Quoting javi2541997
Logically yes, if the truthfulness is known but reality is rarely that way. We are presented with a barrage of information where we have to validate ourselves if they are truths or not. Aren't there believable lies and unbelievable truths? I guess my question is: can we know that we aren't believing in falsehoods? Can the liars you mention, be believing in falsehoods that they misinterpret as truths?
They are literally believing in falsehoods but they do not want interpret it as truths because probably this will so painful for them soy they rather live and believe in falsehoods.
If we can or not that actually we believe or not in falsehoods depends on us... and our sense of reality. I guess the key here is to find an equilibrium
Usually truths are useful apropos their relevant domains.
No. The only instance of a 'useful falsehood' of which I'm aware is a falsehood – fiction – that conveys a 'truth' indirectly, ironically, figuratively (e.g. poetry, painting, theatre, erotica, etc). Otherwise, falsehoods are useful as lies, blocking or concealing truths from others and/or yourself.
'My philosophical pursuits' have been useful only as means for me to have widened and deepened my understanding [ ... ]
Understanding (re: the function of philosophy, as I see it) is only as "useful" as it is reflectively lived every day, that is, only "useful" for reflective living (i.e. agency).
No. Along with 'beauty' & 'good,' 'truth' is itself a criterion for judging that's grounded in – constituted by – understanding: so, the less confused (i.e. untintelligible, inexplicable) your understanding, the less irreflective (i.e. dogmatic, incorrigible) your criteria for judging, then, therefore, the less maladaptive (i.e. frustrating, immiserating, self-defeating) your agency becomes.
Causality! There's a relationship between the validity of the knowledge bases of action, and the consequences of such action within a causal reality. Acting on falsity one naturally acts at a disparity to reality, that only increases with time, and or events. It may not seem, immediately - one suffers any ill-effects, but so long as the lie is maintained as truth, then the clock is ticking on the cuckoos coming home to roost. It's like in a sitcom, where someone tells a lie, then has to tell another lie to cover that, and so on and so on. It comes to be more trouble than it was worth in the first place. Truth is the best long term strategy.
Yes to all of these. Much of human nature (and certainly not limited to humans) is the preference to rationalize the truth we find convenient rather than rationally seek actual truth. Think of all the people with contradictory philosophies who are nevertheless completely convinced that they're the ones in the right, with everybody else being wrong. They're all lying to themselves, and believing the lies. Not lying that their view is the correct one, but lying that it must be the correct one.
I personally hold contradictory beliefs. I thus know that some of my beliefs cannot be correct, but one cannot simply will ones self to unbelieve something.
As for lies I tell others, I've never told my Mother that I've abandoned belief in God the way I was raised. What's the purpose in telling her that? She just doesn't need to worry that her child is going to hell, although I admit to having been at several funerals of vocal atheists where the mourners (and even the pastor) still comfort each other with words like "he's in a better place now", which is exactly a lie told for a purpose.
Your question makes sense to me because I can remember a time when I was really afraid of possible finding of truth in my searching. What if the truth I discovered was not bearable at all. At the time, I was hovering between Christianity and atheism and afraid of both possibilities. Was it surprising that I began reading in the direction of Eastern traditions.
My answer may seem absurd to some people, because finding the truth is sometimes seen as important above all else, especially in philosophy.My own feelings of fear of finding truth of Christianity were based on my guilt and fear of hell, while the prospect of atheism seemed to spell out cosmic insignificance. But, the point which I am making is not I was aware of feeling fearful of truth itself. I was looking for answers which would make life endurance.
I am still inclined to think that finding 'truth' when we are searching for answers to all the big questions is connected to our psychological motivations. For many aspects of this, it is not as if truth is revealed easily, so it may be that we often perceive and think what we find helpful to make life meaningful.
What I am saying does worry me though, because I would like to believe that my own exploration is impartial. I have moved on from the big fear of theism vs atheism and like to think that I am more impartial now. However, as a general principle, I do wonder about when we search in the world of ideas and explanations, what if we discovered truth which was simply horrific, beyond all worst possibilities? Would we fight against it and seek untruths instead?
I'm not sure I follow. Why is believing in falsehoods not the equivalent of interpreting it as truths? If you believe it is real, convince yourself it is real, then to that person it is as if that is a truth. Do you think we turn to falsehoods only because we are unprepared or scared to face the truths?
I ask because I see some people believe in falsehoods because it 'works.' For example, a thief may be able to become a greater thief if they believe that the rich he steals from deserves it, especially inherently. The thief is able to steal with less hesitation and thus is able to be more efficient and effective, regardless of how true this perception is.
So only truth is useful, other than to cover truths, and any falsehoods that seem useful, in this case fiction, just has truths hidden in it? I see where you're getting at but there at least seems to be manipulative benefits to lies in regards to people. If you tell someone a lie, you definitely cover the truth, but depending on the lie you manipulate them differently. This seems like a usefulness independent of truths.
Quoting 180 Proof
Wouldn't then, truth having value as a criterion for judging ultimately be rooted in its usefulness in "improving" your agency? So then if a falsehood that is more useful in improving our agency exists, then that falsehood would be better than truth.
I agree that's what I feel goes on in my experiences, but what if there is a "perfect" lie in which the lie does not come back in a negative way. With the causal analysis, that lie would appear just like a truth.
Changing perspectives, if a person only has a day to live, there are many lies that this person can spread without having to meet the negative consequences. Now we don't only live a day, but in some respects, the human lifespan is short and some lies may take longer than that lifespan to prove its falsity.
If either of these lies exists, then there are possibilities that some "truths" that we take for granted by causality may be falsehoods instead.
Quoting counterpunch
Pardon me quoting myself for reference.
Quoting FlaccidDoor
*truthfulness is rarely known X
*lot of information / (nearest thing I got to a tick, weird right!)
*difficulty of validating information /
*credible lies /
*incredible truths /X - reality is incredible but truth has an appeal we recognise and gravitate toward.
*difficulty of validating information - again! no tick for you!
*misplaced piety /
Almost the whole gamut of epistemic implication. I'm impressed by the seemingly accidental concentration of philosophical themes - stuffed into such a short paragraph. I'm only disappointed you didn't also reach for the sceptical argument underlying utter epistemic relativism, and conclude by suggesting we can't actually KNOW anything!
I don't accept truthfulness is rarely known. Rather, I think science now constitutes a highly valid and increasingly coherent understanding of the reality we inhabit - to which we ought pay attention if we'd rather continue inhabiting it. Emphasis on absolute certainty is a red herring. I would like to continue inhabiting earth. I'd like to belong to a species with a future, and faced with significant future challenges - I see an opportunity in the objective validity of science, to meet and overcome those challenges - and secure for our species a long and prosperous future. Should I not talk about it? I'm aware there are reasons that maybe I shouldn't; and that's why you haven't, and that's why we're almost certainly doomed.
It is a lot. Everything is. Reality is complex and entropic. That's why we need vast amounts of energy to spend, and we have it. It's there, and key to human survival. I've gone through a lot to reach that conclusion. Painfully aware of how difficult it is to get anything done, I've sought to identify the key log - and it is limitless clean energy. It's the most scientifically fundamental approach - and the greatest good for the least cost, with least disruption. I can imagine fossil fuel producers freaking out at the very idea, but I would argue more energy gives us more time and discretion in the short to mid term, and would be applied to create sustainable markets in the long term. Nothing in that argument is beyond the scope of our knowledge or the potential of our technology.
Validation! I'll do it myself if I have to. Just give me the money, and get out of the way. I'll hire the expertise and machinery and have at it. You might be better going with someone with a proven track record in project management; I'd certainly look to hire such a person. But give me the cash and in five years I'll give you a working prototype of a system that can be scaled all the way up to limitless clean electricity, that extracts atmospheric carbon and buries it by the megaton, and produces hydrogen fuel and fresh water in industrial amounts.
Credible lies. I'm not lying. Naively, I set out upon my philosophical journey wanting to know what's truly true, and I found something - I'm somewhat inadequate to describe. It could be likened to an old lever, overgrown and forgotten - that in face of impending challenges, and having considered the consequences - I eventually concluded I'm morally obligated to point out. I have asked myself if pointing out the existence of the lever is equivalent to pulling the lever myself, or being reckless as to whether the lever is pulled. I have asked myself if pointing out the existence of the lever might cause that which, I believe pulling the lever would prevent. I've asked myself if I might be wrong, and found I was, and backtracked and changed my mind - and thought about it all - all over again and again until, as far as I can tell I'm right. Why, in all that - would I lie?
Incredible truths is pretty much covered above.
Nil points for repeating yourself. In fact, one demerit.
And then there's misplaced piety. I don't doubt the piety of others, even if I believe it's misplaced, but rather, refine my proposal to one specific, scientifically fundamental key application of technology, necessary to a sustainable future - precisely to afford our ideological irrationalities. I presume too much to draw an analogy with Prometheus, but in parallel style - advocate bringing home the truth we can live with. I don't advocate truth with a capital T - but pulling the big truth lever in a pragmatic fashion. Science is a highly valid and coherent understanding of reality we can trust in, and in those terms - it's possible to drill for magma energy, and use that energy to avoid the impending catastrophe of our existence.
I had a weird feeling that I was missing a key component and I think you might've hit the nail, thanks. I didn't have a strict idea of truth when I made this post, but I believe the closest definition in my usage is that truth is a statement or idea describing reality as is, as opposed to falsehoods which are statements or ideas that do not.
With this definition, would there be falsehoods that are more useful than truths?
I also feel like philosophy in many forms fail to be useful in 'quotidian' (new word!) activities. Its usefulness is in soothing my curiosity about the next stupid question that pops up in my head to gnaw at my mind.
Wouldn't lying necessitate that you "know" something else is true? When I asked about the liars from a previous post, I was implying that those liars believed some falsehoods to be truths, rather than lying to themselves per se. So if people with differing philosophies know believe they are right, they can also believe that they must be the correct one without lying.
Quoting noAxioms
I can relate pretty heavily to that. My family is Christian and growing up I could never swallow the ideas they threw at me about bibles, prayers, "Christ's love" and especially when they say "God works in mysterious ways" when someone dies in a way they didn't deserve. I don't intend to make fun of these things. I was jealous they could believe it if anything, because people who did actually enjoyed the boring bible lectures and prayer times. I've come to terms with it recently with pragmatism, in that believing in those Christian things have usefulness to them. I agree that there are lies that are told in these environments, like "he's in a better place now" but they attempt to be useful lies.
I resonate with what you're saying because my interests definitely does its part in swaying the direction of my thinking. I want a belief that justifies how I lived and will live. I suspect this is true for other philosophies and makes me question the motivations behind philosophies like anti-natalism.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I wonder where you find yourself now. It's interesting because I don't associate fear in broad universal truths as much as I do truths at an individualistic level. Violence, rape, torture, mutilation, genocide...they only become truly horrifying when you zoom in. Then I feel immense disgust and fear to these acts and sometimes to how I react to them.
Completely. They are always making up their reality just to confront themselves because the world outside is not for them or they do not want it. Sometimes, I defended this situation depending in someone circumstances but in the long run could be really dangerous if someone only live in a fantasy
As I already said with you previously, it is better to live the reality as it is. Doesn’t matter how painful or disastrous could be. I remember in my school back in the day, I used to build a fake fantasy imagining myself a life I completely will never get. When I started accepting this reality everything turned out perfectly.
I think that you are speaking of the horrors of life, which is a little different from finding truth, philosophically, or is it? We have moved into an era of post truth, especially after post modernism, as suggested by Michael Kakutani in, 'The Denial of Truth',(2018). He suggests that some individuals tried to 'whitewash entire chapters of history' alongside exploiting 'the postmodernist argument that all truths are partial.'
Well I think it's absurd to suggest that we can't know anything because we, as people tend to be, claim to know a lot. If it's knowing as in, knowing something to be true, then I find myself definitely heading towards that direction, but I don't want to conclude that. To be honest I'm more surprised there are no Descartes yet to talk about a priori.
Quoting counterpunch
I think this is misworded. I mention falsehoods as in, statements or ideas that describe reality falsely, not necessarily something that is spouted purposefully as a lie. People can speak falsehoods without lying (on purpose) if they believe it is the truth.
Quoting counterpunch
I agree that science has some of the highest validity of any contemporary beliefs regarding objective reality, but I disagree that it contributes any understanding. The greatest strength and weakness of science is that it doesn't make a conclusion. It just associates the evidence to a theory or conclusion. It takes a humble position of not 'understanding' anything, allowing for the natural selection of theories so only the strongest theories remain. However as soon as strong enough evidence to disprove a theory pops up, that theory is replaced with something better. The understanding that you mentioned are conclusions made by scientists and are imperfect and deserving of criticism even in its own field of science.
Quoting counterpunch
I was trying to summarize but I'm also not the greatest writer. I'll try to watch out for it.
Quoting counterpunch
This digresses from the main topic but I'm confident in my share of research into renewable energy and I must say there's a reason the fossil fuel industry has survived today, and it's not just because of lobbyists. Wind and solar energy is expensive and arguably more damaging to the environment because the sheer amount of plastics and rare metals that it needs for batteries as well as the electrical generator. These plastics and rare metals all need to be mined or fracked, often with environmentally disastrous methods in poorer nations like China. Once built, they usually have to run for decades (I think solar panels needed to run for around 25 years with our current technology) just to pay for itself. That's IF the technology doesn't lose effectiveness from wear over time which it certainly will, if it doesn't straight up break. So to summarize, clean and limitless energy is a dream that's still far from reality.
Yes.
In my case, the things probably closest to truth are probably what I'd label as 'suspicions' rather than beliefs, and my strongest beliefs probably correspond to falsehoods. I find those beliefs useful to me. They make me fit for instance.
Maybe you define truth differently:
Quoting FlaccidDoor
What about belief in specific god X? There's a lot of mutually contradictory X's from which to choose, and some of them must be falsehoods, yet belief in them leads the believer into leading a better life (sometimes) and leads them to fit better into their local community, which is definitely beneficial.
Quoting FlaccidDoorYou use the word 'know' like 'believe' here. One can believe something (be certain about it even, which is the lying to which I refer), but true knowledge is seemingly out of reach because there is not enough data. The existence of alternate valid interpretations of things means there is no way to know which interpretation (if any) is the true one. No, such lying is due not to knowing something else is true, but to realizing that something else could be true.
Oh I swallowed it completely at first, and was put in a Christian school that taught that science (evolution in particular) didn't contradict the teachings of the church. But then other churches began to deny science and force a choice, so I looked at both as objectively as I could, and the choice was pretty obvious to me. I've been on a search ever since to identify the biases I never thought to question and it has led to some less than mainstream conclusions, but not conclusions so strong that I'll make the mistake of asserting them as truth. Just higher on the probability scale (fewest unanswerd problems) than any other interpretation I've considered.
My example above, yes. I wrote that before seeing this.
My first answer was more controversial and I abandoned it for this simpler case.
I didn't think I was confused until now. Limitless clean energy does suggest windmills and solar panels unless it refers to nuclear energy. However that still has it's own problems and many people don't describe it as limitless because it technically isn't. I'm not sure what other technology you could have been referring to, unless it's perpetual motion machines.
While I did digress a bit my purposes of going into this topic was to criticize your example of useful truths in which you named science. I don't think science presents any truths in the form of understanding per se because science does not offer conclusions. It just pushes for affirming and then reaffirming evidence and any conclusions made from said evidence isn't science. Just a logical assertion made by the researcher. I assumed you were talking about renewable energy because renewable energy is a popular scientific topic boasting green, limitless energy, but it's false at it's current state. This was meant to show that science, as you named it, is a potential source of (useful?) falsehoods.
I mentioned harnessing magma heat energy using drilling technology. I've mentioned it often enough, and we've spoken often enough - you should know that. If you'd read my post before replying, you'd know that - but you never do. It's not the first time I've read your response - and it's clear you haven't read the post you're responding to.
I agree. You shouldn't deceive yourself from the reality as it is presented to you, because it often sets you up for failure. When I don't want to work or eat well, sometimes I find myself trying to trick myself into thinking that I will just do it tomorrow, when past history has clearly shown that I will not.
I think it is, but far from a useful one ontologically speaking. It's also not a philosophically proven truth but I think those horrors of life describes reality correctly at least at a single time and place.
That seems like an interesting book. But I suspect the perceived "death of truth" is just a realization that there is no such thing as unbiased information, especially in journalism. In the past when news were presented mostly on paper, big news outlets were able to fact check their information to ensure some standards against their own biases. They had time since the most recent news were still a day late considering printing and distribution time. However today, those same outlets have to compete for viewer retention online, with news presented at the same hour with explosive headlines being rewarded the most. Since established news outlets were forced to lower their quality of service, other outlets, including anyone that can google, can compete for the "most trustworthy news source" position.
Sorry I was unclear. What I meant here is that it would just seem to that person that it is a truth, not that it actually is. A person's ability to believe as if something is true is different from that actually being true.
Quoting noAxioms
I agree with your reasoning but there's a simple solution to it. That your belief includes believing that other beliefs are invalid. I think many in this forum treat this as taboo, dogmatism, zeal and so on and so we look down upon it, but while unreasonable, it is logically valid.
I'm sorry to hear that but I only joined this forum recently, and while we have talked before I don't think we talked too much about renewable energy. You might've mentioned geothermal energy (which is a good one, admittedly) before but that was far from the main topic which was about political divides. You also didn't mention a blip of it in this thread so forgive my ignorance.
I'm sorry for assuming your position and I'm not confident enough in my knowledge to talk about geothermal energy. I hope you understand my position of argument though, because wind and solar are still a very popular source for green energy, and while you might not believe in it many people do.
This depends on the area of enquiry. In rational investigations, I'd say that people want to pursue truth or matters of fact, all the while keeping in mind that capital "t" Truth, may well be beyond our capacities as biological creatures.
The issue becomes difficult dealing with "ordinary life". There you need to consider context, situations, different persons and so on. In this domain, sometimes we need to lie, or be polite, or say half-truths and so on.
As with truth, so with usefulness. In enquiry, truth is often useful. In ordinary life, this depends on the person. I think it makes sense to have usefulness in mind, while keeping in mind that what's useful depends on your own interests. But any obsession with Truth, shouldn't arise, I don't think, we are likely to be wrong, as has been the case throughout history.
Doesn't follow. Say I believe in eternalism (block universe, time is a dimension) which is opposed to presentism (that there is a preferred moment in time). I have no reason to believe that the presentist stance is invalid. It is only invalid if it is self inconsistent or inconsistent with actual measurements somewhere, which it isn't (although I might choose to argue otherwise).
Maybe your point is that I have no grounds for my eternalist belief because I have no evidence that alternate views are unsound, but all beliefs are of that nature.
I do hold some beliefs (including some that I'm fairly certain are falsehoods), but I as far as I can manage, I don't claim these beliefs to be true knowledge since there seems to be no access to such knowledge.
No.
Quoting counterpunch
Quoting Manuel
I agree, truth is often useful. I don't understand you fully in the last part though. What do you mean by an obsession of Truth? Do you refer to liars like drug addicts?
However a belief can change the very definition of what is valid or invalid for the individual. A belief that invalidates all other beliefs inherently allows for a logically sound environment in which that person can reject all other beliefs without lying to themselves, regardless of whether that belief is based on truth or falsehoods.
No worries, I'm not in a foul mood, and for what it's worth, I see now that I didn't actually mention drilling for magma until the very last sentence. I've talked about it so much - what I believe is the solution to climate change, and key to a long and prosperous future for our species, that I thought I had mentioned it - and/or that I didn't need to explain what I meant by limitless clean energy. That said, I think if you were honest you'd acknowledge a tendency to take to the keyboard before having done the reading. I'm just telling you, it's very obvious to other people when you do that.
:fire:
No, the "motive" for pursuing truth is truth itself. One can use truth as a criterion, or priority, for judging between alternative paths; false paths are discarded, then less untrue (or more true) paths are considered, leaving their comparative usefulnesses, or adequacies for the task or situation at hand, as the deciding factor. In the long run, however, adaptivity, not only usefulness, is what matters – whether or not taking this useful path or that one engenders truth-seeking habits with positive feedbacks (i.e. intellectual virtues).
A belief seems not to require evidence, but evidence nevertheless helps.
It isn't? You have an example of something that contradicts neither itself nor empirical evidence that is nevertheless invalid?
I don't see how any belief can invalidate a different belief. I spelled out what does invalidate it, and alternate beliefs are not on the list.
Maybe I should've kept things simple and replied with: Are rigid straight rulers useful? Are consistent precision clocks or scales useful? Are fair dice useful? ... Each helps us better align our beliefs (i.e. predictions, expectations) with reality, don't they?
Quoting counterpunch
I try not to do so as much as I can, because I know the insult it causes to the receiver. I can honestly say that I do, but I have limited time and I think I wasn't in the most pristine mental condition when I sent my replies the first time. I was fairly sure this morning that you didn't imply any hints to geothermal but I was proven wrong pretty handedly. I'm afraid I'm an imperfect being that forced himself to engage in debate with other thinkers when he knew he didn't have the capacity that met theirs. I can only ask that you have the patience with this imbecile and take the time to clear any misunderstandings that I have.
You're smart enough. That's not the problem. It's your impatience. You've got ideas, and leap at the keys to get them down. I know because I was the same way - until I disciplined myself to read the whole thing before I started writing. The ideas are still there after - and probably better formed for the effort. I don't want any bad feeling between us. I enjoy your posts, and would like to be able to discuss them with you.
Sorry, I lack clarification here. I meant belief as in your belief of validity. Function as in, to invalidate another belief by using some evidence provided.
Quoting noAxioms
Let me start by clarifying that I don't intend to criticize your beliefs in particular at all. My example was to describe a scenario in which a person lives in a logically righteous world because they do not have the same strenuous validation process as you might. They can invalidate other beliefs because validation requires the belief to be his own. All other beliefs are invalid inherently according to this belief. I suspect that the reason you say this specific belief is invalid is because you are working on the belief that validation requires non-self-contradiction and supporting empirical evidence. While many people here will agree with you, including me, the unreasonable individual, as in the example given above, believes otherwise.
I like the metaphor you use here a lot. A ruler, clock and scale is a lot like how we do our best to describe reality as it is, in that we both need to create the measurement system, the tool for the measurement, and a method in which to use the tool correctly. Risk is also a very important part of daily life, although I never gambled, so it seems like dies are fair game as well.
My main concern is if there aren't falsities that are more useful than these tools in their respective domains. For example, in a shipping factory, we can use rulers to measure the dimensions of a package every single time, but it can be inefficient. So then a company might just say, "guess with your eyes instead" and it can be useful enough. Individual estimation of the package by eye is not as accurate as a ruler, but it is accurate enough for reality to be more useful than the ruler.
I also like your previous post's analogy of truth to light. I resonate with this and the previous one heavily. You mention adaptivity, but isn't that just usefulness in a differing situations? So again, IF a falsehood exists that overwhelms the truth in this domain, then it would be better than the truth?
If you have anything you want me to clarify about my position, don't hesitate. I'll be looking forward to it.
Quoting FlaccidDoor
Only in (that instance of) that domain. In terms of 'possible worlds semantics' (Kripke), a 'truth-claim' obtains in one or more possible worlds, and in a possible world where a 'truth-claim' does not obtain that 'claim' is a falsehood (fiction or lie). Furthermore, there are possible worlds where claims are useful or not useful, and dependent or not dependent on being truthful or false (e.g. myths, ideologies, folk psychologies/medicines, romances, fairytales, games, etc).
That was poorly phrased. All I meant was that most people throughout history have been wrong in there beliefs. They thought the there were many gods and through these, that's how the world works. If it rains it's because the gods are pleased, if it's dry the gods are angry, etc.
As we've progressed and left that type of thinking behind, we began having theories or sorts. Most of them have not been true, as applied to how the world works. We likely are in a similar boat in that, someday we might discover our theories are incomplete and that out beliefs are mistaken in some big manner.
Obsession with Truth meaning the final word on the subject, the absolute end all of questioning because we have the answer. There's always more to find out and discover.
OK, I see what you're saying. Some used to believe that light moved at a fixed speed through a medium, just as does sound. That was eventually shown to be false by experiment, so the theory was no longer valid, and thus any belief in it was not valid, at least not without some serious modifications.
It isn't? You have an example of something that contradicts neither itself nor empirical evidence that is nevertheless invalid?
— noAxioms
Have you? I didn't really post to much of my actual beliefs, and I detected no criticism.
I didn't understand those last lines. How is the other person's belief (presumably in contradiction with the first person's) invalidated? What does "validation requires the belief to be his own" mean? I just don't see how my own beliefs can have any effect at all on the validity of somebody else's differing beliefs. I might believe they are wrong, but that belief doesn't invalidate theirs.
What do you think it means for a statement to be valid? I gave my definition above, but you seem to have a non-standard definition going on here.
Umm.... What specific belief? Does this specific belief (perhaps by said unreasonable person) fail to meet my criteria?
Sorry, but maybe if I figured out what those phrases meant above, I'd figure out what you're trying to get at here.
Is this similar to a neo-pragmatism? I'm unclear what you mean by adaptivity - do you mean where it has usefulness in a range of situations?
Philosophy can be useful and useless at the same time. It depends on the purpose of Truth. Why you are pursuing it.
If philosophy is to pursue a universal morality that everyone can agree on. Than yes philosophy is useless because a type of universal moral conduct does not exist.
If philosophy is to teach you the basics of moral principles so you can expand on it based on your own personal journey. Than yes it is useful because it teaches you about analytical thinking and awareness about yourself.
Acknowledging philosophy as a way to understand things like a sort of strategy is the best way to see it. Philosophy is not the solution is just one of many possible ways to the solution.
What about the notion that truth is worth pursuing for its own sake? If you are not a philosophical pragmatist does truth have to have a function?
You put yourself at risk of Existential OCD if you don’t give it a purpose?
In other words know when enough is enough. Know your limits and acknowledge the end of the journey.
Perhaps you seek the wrong destination, then. What made you seek what you do? Or even believe or want what you do? Your own human nature? Perhaps.. or perhaps it was your environment and upbringing. Does this world seem to be an ideal place for the best of experiences to be had and formed? The best of ideas and visions of ideal and real desires and pursuits of being both temporal and eternal? Does it?
How do you recognize reason if ego lies to the mind?
Ego purpose is to create the illusion to preserve emotional health and consciousness.
To recognize truth you must first learn the psychology that drives your mind and why you want to know the truth.
Than discipline the mind to acknowledge the truth, whether it cause distress to the psyche or not.
Because truth will challenge conviction, what we believe becomes our identity and gives us purpose.
So is not just simply reasoning and validating the truth but also prime the mind to accept it when found.
To assume you are ready to accept the truth without mental preparation will just lead you in a never ending cycle.
Ah, here we go. The classic statement. What I do works for the moment for me and me alone. If only you knew how many men greater than you chose these last words in their pursuits here in this life.. though, perhaps your right, in a sense. What doesn't serve you well? Why not? Why doesn't it? Perhaps because it serves another just a little bit better? Does this advance the human condition or merely the human tolerance of life? These are the questions one may only hope to live long enough to ponder.
Ok - so I am not saying it works for me alone. I have no idea who it works for. I tend to hold a soft-deflationary theory of truth. I need an example of something to investigate before I can provide a response. I don't think it is possible to talk about 'truth' in general terms, as it means a range of things. I need details.
The only thing I questioned, is what you know and I suppose as a result are willing to share. We are similar in this respect, that is to say, you speak from something I assume to be more than a philosophical passing glance, and this is what is unknown to me yet known to you. Now I'm the one who need details.
Beyond that though, my general statement in recent posts was along the lines of what works for you in this moment may not work for you in the next. Or perhaps even that you deny yourself the true destination and yes even journey of enhanced knowledge or virtue, from your own ingrained limitations and belief.
Agree. I do know that people tend to focus on destinations or results at the expense of how they got there. Sometimes the journey is where the truth is found - the destination is merely the excuse to travel. This hit me for the first time in 1983 when I encountered this quote by Robert Louis Stevenson- ".. to travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive, and the true success is to labour." At first I was irritated by this and gradually I came to agree. I understand there is a Taoist saying 'the journey is the reward.'
An interesting thought worth putting under the microscope. It goes without saying that people are susceptible to flattering lies and that the occasional white lie is far better than the bitter truth.
Nevertheless, in my humble opinion, we need to unpack this idea a little more to get to the bottom of this rather intriguing puzzle viz. the truth is lies are [sometimes] better than truths.
My take on this is that we're conflating two important concepts, each of equal importance to our well-being; one is lies [deception] and the other is, for lack of a better word, hypotheticals [non-deceptions]. Imagine there'a a woman who's conscious of her obesity. She asks me, after putting on a dress, "do I look fat?" The truth is not just that she looks fat but that she is fat but I discreetly respond, "no, you don't look fat at all". This is what we'd call a white lie. My response is an outright falsehood no doubt but the appeal that the white lie has doesn't come from its falsity but from its hypothetical nature i.e. the woman feels comforted by the white lie because she can imagine herself, hypothetically, that she's not fat and definitely not becauase of it being a faleshood.
It's kinda like me wanting to be X (my idol for instance) for whatever reason. Any pleasure or satisfaction I derive from this fervent desire doesn't arise from it being a falsehood but from it being a possibility, a hypothetical, that can, given the right circumstances, can be actualized.
Is failure to reveal a truth really a “true lie” though or simply an “inactive or passive” approach. For example if we take the example of someone with no curiosity for apprehending the truth. They prefer to stay ignorant to such things. Can we really say they are a liar? I’m not sure if I’d agree.
I think to lie actively one must be reasonably sure of the right/ correct way/ truth and then choose to ignore it or actively deceive people.
Someone who “doesn’t know any better” is different to “someone who knows better but chooses not to behave in line with that.
...I don't. Also, hi. :smile:
You're contrasting truth with lies, here. So are we talking about epistemological/scientific/psychological "truth", or about "truthfulness"? I consider being truthful as something different than the other forms of "truth" I mentioned, btw. Might be a personal quirk though.
There are times when half truths or even whole lies are more useful, in my opinion. Depends on the context. Things are never just "useful" without a specified goal. Books are useful for reading, less so as a main course for dinner.
You made me think of a counterexample.
[quote=Francis Bacon]
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested...
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure Francis Bacon wasn't talking about actual bibliophagy... :rofl:
Lying (which is pervasive and almost universally accepted in Western society) is interesting for all kinds of reasons, but none more interesting than the following...
When I was in my teens, I came across this idea (and I do not remember from where it came) but it seems to have panned-out....
Basically, the idea is that if you lie, 80% of those lies are recognized as such immediately. Another 15% will be found out shortly, and the remaining 5%, eventually. Therefore, one might conclude that lying produces poor returns.
In a society such as the one we happen to frequent, lying is ubiquitous, and it seems as if a great deal of people are profiting from such behavior. Just part of the adult-child thing going on. But is this really the case? Do you believe that any of these people are content, or are they just part of the miserable masses?
I wish someone had told me that before I chewed up my copy of his essays.
:starstruck: :sweat: :grimace: :vomit:
Quoting FlaccidDoor
The universe is pretty good at remembering where it was with everything when I stop paying attention for whatever reason. The car is parked where I last parked it. The house I grew up in has decayed and been somewhat restored by others who live there now. Parrots live in Brooklyn when they did not a few decades before.
Isn't all that pointing toward the "truth"?