Is an Untrue Belief that Inspires Good Better than a Truth?

[SilentMute]

I have been debating this for some time, ever since I watched an episode of The Simpsons. In this episode, Lisa Simpson finds out that the beloved town founder had been a pirate. When she tries to enlighten people, they become hostile and don't listen. Finally, she gets proof--but then she decides not to reveal it because she realizes that the belief in the town founder inspired good in people--and that was more valuable than the truth.

Generally, we are taught to believe that it is always better to embrace the truth--harsh and ugly as it often is. Believing lies is short-term gain, long-term lost.

However, as I get older, I can appreciate how difficult it is to live by truths. As I've evaluated my beliefs and my life, this old question has came up. I don't like using religion as an example, but it is the only example I can think of where my beliefs might be stronger than my love of facts.

I believe in reincarnation. I don't believe in it because, after reviewing other religions, I thought this the most likely explanation. I believe in it because it appeals to me the most, pure and simple. It appeals to me because:
1) I'm a late bloomer, so I like the idea that if I don't accomplish everything I wish to in this life, there is always the next one.
2) It keeps me from offing myself during hard times because I believe that I'll only have to repeat it again if I don't face it in this life.
3) It makes it easier to stay on the moral path because I believe that if I commit a wrong, I'll pay for it in the next life or in this one.
4) It helps me accept death of loved ones because I believe they will live again and I might see them in another life.

So, what if a scientist tomorrow came up with definite proof that reincarnation didn't exist? I have to admit, I would probably reject the proof. Not very enlightened of me--but it takes a very strong person to live by truths totally. I don't know if I'm that strong...particularly when it comes to horrible things in life that thankfully I have not experienced first hand. What if your child is raped, tortured, and killed? The killer was a sociopath whose brain is abnormal, and parents can't totally protect their children no matter how much they try--that is a truth. How much comfort would it give to a parent though? Religion often is better at comforting grief--it says the person's soul lives on, that there is a powerful force that will bring justice, etc.

So, if a belief system does good--and it doesn't necessarily have to be religious in nature (like in the episode, is it better that people believe a lie about a famous person if it inspires them to do good things or to know the truth)--is it better than a truth?

[keilj]

No. I firmly, firmly believe in the statement that "the truth will set you free"

I think an untruth, even if it inspires good, is ultimately unhealthy (emotionally, psychologically) - and that unhealthiness will manifest itself at some point

In other words, I think compromising the truth - no matter how innocuous it might seem, or no matter what the reason - is one of the biggest things we can do wrong in life


other than love, I think the truth is the biggest thing in life that we must hold to



1) I'm a late bloomer, so I like the idea that if I don't accomplish everything I wish to in this life, there is always the next one.


I'm a late bloomer as well - and I get quite down about it sometimes

these songs give me a little bit of solace about it - or at least let me know that I'm not the only one who feels this way:

http://www.brucespringsteen.net/songs/ThisHardLand.html


http://www.brucespringsteen.net/songs/MyBeautifulReward.html

[NikolaiI]

Well Nietzsche said something quite like this too. In the first chapter of the first part of Beyond Good & Evil (Prejudices of the Philosophers) he asks the very same question. He asks the value of truth, "Granted we will truth: why not rather untruth? And uncertainty? Even ignorance?"

This rattled around in my mind for years... and a while ago I came up with the answer to his question. It only makes sense if you accept that ignorance is like illusion - illusion is like a dream; truth is like the waking up from the dream. Therefore, why not rather untruth is answered this way: untruth is illusion, dream. The reason we yearn for truth is the same as when we have slept for too long. We develop restlessness which gradually increases until it is something akin to panic: we want truth because we need reality.

Now, the second thing is; is it really so common that the truth is harsh and cold, or is this an illusion pushed upon us by people who have given up too soon? The Indian philosopher Swami Vivekananda once formulated 15 laws of life which sort of encapsulated his system of thought. The second one is
2. It's Your Outlook That Matters: It is our own mental attitude, which makes the world what it is for us. Our thoughts make things beautiful, our thoughts make things ugly. The whole world is in our own minds. Learn to see things in the proper light.

(I recently posted the 15 on a thread I started about him, which you can see here if you're intersted - http://online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45634)

It's just one way of expressing it, and it's an idea which runs through and shows in the thought of many philosophers. Swami Vivekananada also says that one should only speak from one's experience; to speak of the soul if one has not perceived it is like lying, the same is true of speaking about God if one hasn't perceived God. Though he wrote about God, he also said it is better to be an outspoken atheist than a hypocrite.

I've seen a lot of arguments about all these topics and been in a few; and realized eventually that it was not really for me. My joy lies elsewhere.

Now the last thing I'll say in this post is that from Plato to Plotinus to Black Elk, to Laotzu, to Alan Watts, and to Sri Aurobindo (another Indian philosopher who was inspired by Swami Vivekananda's teachings) and many others; the greatest minds and philosophers of our race have been valued the qualities of hope and trust, among others. Alan Watts explained it this way; if you are swimming, and you try grasp and grasp at the water, you will sink. But if you relax, lean back, then you will float. That is what faith is. It's getting a feel for the water, the reality around us, and by trusting it we float; grasping and defending is not faith.

Lastly - what is truth, what is real? This is what I was going to say is common to all of the names I listed: they all believed there is a spiritual reality. I will just give a couple of quotes.

This one is from Black Elk Speaks, the 7 chapter;

Crazy Horse's father was my father's cousin, and there were no chiefs in our family before Crazy Horse; but there were holy men; and he became a chief because of the power he got in a vision when he was a boy. When I was a man, my father told me something about that vision. Of course he did not know all of it; but he said that Crazy Horse dreamed and went into the world where there is nothing but the spirits of all things. That is the real world that is behind this one, and everything we see here is something like a shadow from that world. He was on his horse in that world, and the horse and himself on it and the trees and the grass and the stones and everything were made of spirit, and nothing was hard, and everything seemed to float. His horse was standing still there, and yet it danced around like a horse made only of shadow, and that is how he got his name, which does not mean that his horse was crazy or wild, but that in his vision it danced around in that queer way.

And R.W. Emerson, in his essay "The Over-Soul," mentions, "From within or from behind, a light shines through us upon things, and makes us aware that we are nothing, but the light is all." Of course we are not the first to say that spirit and light are the reality. The seeming difficulty lies in the rareness of its perception. And yet to those who doubt for all kinds of reasons.. I've always wanted to give solid, completely logical reasoning to them. One is - everything in the universe is energy and matter; the source of all life on earth is the Sun - light - and I wonder, can anything be of different nature than its source?

Of course, I have gone a little bit different way than you were asking and if it was too abstract I apologize. To get the ideal life, for our evolution to go on, we have to tackle very real problems like making the world a safer place, and to work on relieving suffering.

The only reason I post all of these things is that I think there is a lot of truth out there... and I think truth is usually a bright thing, rather than unpleasant. Truth is an individual thing and everyone's life and journey is their own. Everyone says words are inadequate to express the highest experiences, and just because of this doesn't they are no invalid - in fact validation is not necessary.

Two last thoughts; one good poem about all of this is called the Hsin Hsin Ming, by Seng Ts'an, the 6th patriarch of Ch'an Buddhism, or "Inscription on Trust in the Mind." If you can find a good translation it is worthwhile.

I have also experienced some of these things.. and when I agree with Sufism's assertion and Vedantism's assertion that God is the only reality, I do so with the memory of a similar experience. It is thus that assertions of beatific experiences of reality such as the Beatles'

Sounds of laughter shades of life
are ringing through my open ears
exciting and inviting me
Limitless undying love which
shines around me like a million suns
It calls me on and on across the universe

I do not think are conflicting with truth. Idealism and realism are poorly termed because idealism is connected with realism.

I have a friend, Cris, from childhood; who used to be a Christian. And I was an atheist until I was 17 and became agnostic. I now regret - when we were kids I would question his faith and I considered it highly illogical - as do all the atheists on this forum and who live today. And then one day Cris became an atheist, and since, I've enjoyed discussing all these things with him... I hope he enjoys it too. But I know that these events play out in their natural way.

But I am glad that I found what is real... I do agree with Black Elk, with Crazy Horse, as I had experiences akin to theirs.

The message of real mystics is this; and it is the same from Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and others - why it is the same is because there is only one reality. It's that there's never any reason to doubt, worry, or fear.

There's no final truth or end because it's never over. The meaning of the dance is the dance.


No. I firmly, firmly believe in the statement that "the truth will set you free"

Yeah! And I write too much, simple is better.

[dizzydoll]

It's just one way of expressing it, and it's an idea which runs through and shows in the thought of many philosophers. Swami Vivekananada also says that one should only speak from one's experience; to speak of the soul if one has not perceived it is like lying, the same is true of speaking about God if one hasn't perceived God. Though he wrote about God, he also said it is better to be an outspoken atheist than a hypocrite.

The meaning of the dance is the dance.



Yeah! And I write too much, simple is better.

Nicely put, the meaning of the dance is the dance.

Firstly you dont write too much. Secondly even tho you touched on the meaning of words, its pretty insignificant because irrespective of the word describing what we feel they will always fare poorly when it comes to the spiritual realm.

I agree we should ONLY speak from our own experience and therefore I will come back to the word Soul because we have no other to describe what I am about to say -- except "life force", might do the trick. But what am I doing, I have taken the emphasis off the issue and placed it on "the word". This is how ridiculous arguments begin. I mean Soul/Life Force are just words which shouldnt be analysed so deeply.

So let me call it "life force" to keep my comment in perspective. In my experience I saw my dog's [Rebbecca] life force leave her body when I had to put her to sleep. It looked like I was looking through "a huge blob of water" if you will about the size of one of those exercise balls or about the size of a television. So I am not lying about that and yes I prefer referring to it as Rebbecca's Soul. God is an entirely different subject and is not the same as a Soul but is a Life Force... see where I am going, words simply cannot describe what our spiritual nature intended us to learn.

There are other people who I trust who saw Souls who have passed on, like my grandmother saw my great grandmother at the end of her bed one night. I believe her even tho I cannot speak of her experience.

But back to the OP, the truth. There is no truth at this time, we havent the knowledge to speak of any truth for now but whatever we perceive our truth to be, that we must stick to at all costs. Its as case of being true to ourselves and being ethical in our approach to our moral standards.

So I stand by the Truth even if it isnt the Full Truth today, until we discover the Real Truth tomorrow.


Is an Untrue Belief that Inspires Good Better than a Truth?

But your question is ambiguous so I am not sure I chose the correct answer on the poll. Neither science nor religion has the whole truth at the moment so all of us, in point of fact, believe what inspires us in the truth as we have come to know it. So it seems I should have said Yes in the poll where in fact I said No.

[MUMUKSHA]

No. I firmly, firmly believe in the statement that "the truth will set you free"

I think an untruth, even if it inspires good, is ultimately unhealthy (emotionally, psychologically) - and that unhealthiness will manifest itself at some point

In other words, I think compromising the truth - no matter how innocuous it might seem, or no matter what the reason - is one of the biggest things we can do wrong in life


other than love, I think the truth is the biggest thing in life that we must hold to


I completely agree with it. And I also agree with Nik and dizzydoll, as they say that one should not speak of anything that one hasn't actually experienced, so I would not venture into anything related to mysticism or mystical experiences. But truth and untruth is something we inevitably come to experience. And that's why I'm so certain that truth is the only answer. If I ever felt untruth would be better in any given situation, eventually it proved to be the contrary every time. So from experience and a genuine conviction I would always endorse truth.

[Gladys]

A subtle response to the question comes from Fyodor Dostoevsky. He once asserted that even if it were proved that Jesus Christ never existed, he would believe in Christ.

His philosophical progenitor, the Christian Soren Kierkegaard, never thought it worth even considering the reality of either Jesus or God. His fictional counterpart, Henrik Ibsen's Brand, lives radically as an individual naked before his omnipotent God without for a moment questioning divine existence, which is only confirmed at the very end when an almighty avalanche obliterates Pastor Brand and his sole acolyte: a mad gypsy, old, female and outcast.

[TheFifthElement]

It's an interesting question SilentMute. I guess before it can be answered you need to come to a landing on what 'truth' is. I find truth, as a concept, to be virtually non-existent and what people refer to as 'truth' to be nothing more than degrees of belief.

[Gladys]

I find...what people refer to as 'truth' to be nothing more than degrees of belief.

Or, 'truth' is nothing less than degrees of belief lived out in each moment.

[TheFifthElement]

Or, 'truth' is nothing less than degrees of belief lived out in each moment.
Yes, precisely :)

[soundofmusic]

Yes....
We see it everyday in the political world, the religious world, the stock market...
People need hope to keep momentum. I am reminded of some of the greatest times in my lifetime; and I recall that they were also times when we believed that we were powerful, that we were right, that we would soon conquer space and the oceans, feed the hungry and cure disease...
Whether it was true or not was academic; the belief was what brought us toward the dream..

[Cunninglinguist]

What is the objective but the collective subjective? But surely what makes something True lies beyond human experience. We certainly know that geocentrism is untrue, although this used to hold much verisimilitude. There's a distinction to be made between what we think is true and what is actually True.

[SilentMute]

Well, I don't know if I fully understand what some of you are saying, but I'm glad to be referred to some of the works of literature you are reading. It will help me expand my mind and perhaps come to my own answer.

These are my assumptions:
1) The truth usually does set you free--and it only seems harsh to the unenlightened mind. Generally, I agree that the truth--or what we believe is the truth--is best to have and is what should be attainted.
BUT:
2) A person has to reach a certain state before they can accept a truth. I can speak from personal experience on this one. There have been times in my life I rejected the truth because I was not strong enough to handle it at that point. Now, eventually, I did become strong enough--and the truth did prove liberating, but only after I didn't need my mental crutches anymore.

So maybe I asked the question wrong.

Let us take the Simpsons example. Let us say there was a great leader that united a group of people. He preached good values like helping your neighbor, being a good husband, being a good parent, volunteering in the community. Because he was so admired, the people practiced what he taught.

However, while the people practiced good values, they weren't exactly enlightened. If they were to find out that this man they admired so much was not what they thought he was, everything he taught them would disintegrate. These people are not the type that could say, well just because the man was bad, it doesn't mean the values are--even if he didn't live up to them.

So is it good to reveal a truth to people who can't handle it?

While I do believe that the truth is better--I think it can be rather dangerous to take away mental crutches before people are ready to give them up...or lack something else to cling to.

[keilj]

I think I agree that some people are not prepared for the truth - and that it is not right to "crush them with the truth". In other words, if someone is earnest for the most part, and are seeking growth, they will reach a point where they are ready for deeper and deeper truths. I think of myself 15 years ago, and though I had learned many things, there were other things - which I know now - which may have been harsh truths to me then

On the other hand - what bugs me in everyday life is people who willingly live in ignorance or denial. I know family members, friends, so on, who live in blatant denial about their marriages, their kids, so on. I know parents who have raised their kids to be selfish and materialistic, married couples who have all kinds of problems, yet bury it because of all the time they already have invested in it. This kind of docile denial is practiced by a lot of mature and intelligent adults. I think the repercussions of it go beyond dysfunction - almost to a sort of perversion of what the human soul should be. And again, this is probably because by turning their back on the truth, and burying it, the cost and the side effects will come down the line

I guess I rant about things like this because when you are confronted with these friends and family, it is not socially acceptable to call them on it, so you have to almost become a docile participant in their deliberate dysfunction


:rant:

[dizzydoll]

So is it good to reveal a truth to people who can't handle it?


Most definitely and through doing so everyone grows. :coolgleamA:



On the other hand - what bugs me in everyday life is people who willingly live in ignorance or denial. I know family members, friends, so on, who live in blatant denial about their marriages, their kids, so on. I know parents who have raised their kids to be selfish and materialistic, married couples who have all kinds of problems, yet bury it because of all the time they already have invested in it. This kind of docile denial is practiced by a lot of mature and intelligent adults. I think the repercussions of it go beyond dysfunction - almost to a sort of perversion of what the human soul should be. And again, this is probably because by turning their back on the truth, and burying it, the cost and the side effects will come down the line

Yes and I agree Keilj -- denial should be avoided at all costs, thats a real slippery slope.

[NikolaiI]

Yes....
We see it everyday in the political world, the religious world, the stock market...
People need hope to keep momentum. I am reminded of some of the greatest times in my lifetime; and I recall that they were also times when we believed that we were powerful, that we were right, that we would soon conquer space and the oceans, feed the hungry and cure disease...
Whether it was true or not was academic; the belief was what brought us toward the dream..

This sounds a lot like one of my all-time favourite movie lines. :)

San Francisco in the middle sixties was a very special time and place to be a part of. But no explanation, no mix of words or music or memories can touch that sense of knowing that you were there and alive in that corner of time in the world. Whatever it meant. ...

There was madness in any direction, at any hour. You could strike sparks anywhere. There was a fantastic universal sense that whatever we were doing was right, that we were winning. ....

And that, I think, was the handle - that sense of inevitable victory over the forces of old and evil. Not in any mean or military sense; we didn't need that. Our energy would simply prevail. We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave.

-Raoul Duke, in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

[NikolaiI]

Well, I don't know if I fully understand what some of you are saying, but I'm glad to be referred to some of the works of literature you are reading. It will help me expand my mind and perhaps come to my own answer.

These are my assumptions:
1) The truth usually does set you free--and it only seems harsh to the unenlightened mind. Generally, I agree that the truth--or what we believe is the truth--is best to have and is what should be attainted.
BUT:
2) A person has to reach a certain state before they can accept a truth. I can speak from personal experience on this one. There have been times in my life I rejected the truth because I was not strong enough to handle it at that point. Now, eventually, I did become strong enough--and the truth did prove liberating, but only after I didn't need my mental crutches anymore.

So maybe I asked the question wrong.

Let us take the Simpsons example. Let us say there was a great leader that united a group of people. He preached good values like helping your neighbor, being a good husband, being a good parent, volunteering in the community. Because he was so admired, the people practiced what he taught.

However, while the people practiced good values, they weren't exactly enlightened. If they were to find out that this man they admired so much was not what they thought he was, everything he taught them would disintegrate. These people are not the type that could say, well just because the man was bad, it doesn't mean the values are--even if he didn't live up to them.

So is it good to reveal a truth to people who can't handle it?

While I do believe that the truth is better--I think it can be rather dangerous to take away mental crutches before people are ready to give them up...or lack something else to cling to.

Oh, of course - I'm glad you added this.

History is absolutely cluttered with examples like this! This is everywhere.

There's evidence of weaknesses in morality of many figures who were great leaders and did a lot of good; even when one of their main selling points is their strong morality - Martin Luther King, Jr., Mohandas Gandhi, and others. I won't list them all.

I think with some - like these two; they should still be admired for the good they've done. Yet we shouldn't be complacent, not sure if that's the right word... We shouldn't ever hide their faults or give them any leniency in that - as we judge them through history's lens'.

However in some cases it's worse. The problem is that when someone is in power, sometimes because it's easier to get away with stuff, they can feed their vices more than they should. There are also people who I think have very little value in-so-far as what they've contributed. Often these individuals are controversial and have a lot of strong support and a lot of real detractors.

Sigmund Freud for instance, I have very little respect for because, though he was a pioneer (and thus should be allowed some room for mistakes) in his field, I think he was so off on his understanding of human nature as to where I don't want to read his work because I feel like I'm reading someone who actually really needed help, not someone who could give it. His theories were utterly un-scientific and while he may have given some benefit to some; he also gave terribly bad advice to others (such as he told two of his patients who were each married but having an affair together to divorce their spouses and get married to each other - they did but had divorced each other after 1 year, and the woman left with a good position but the man with almost nothing.) Another thing about Freud is that he was addicted to cocaine for 20 years - as far as I know this is a fact - and smoked 20 cigars a day for a similar amount of time. Now I am not against everyone who smokes cigars - but they are nasty to go down generally, and even to smoke one a day I would consider a huge excess. It chokes the prana, etc...

I don't need everyone I will consider reading to be a saint, but I do want them to have a certain measure of having-their-lives going straight; some measure of understanding of their own life and body, and the more so the better. If anyone is going to rise very high on my list, as many have done, they have to have these qualities. It's not that I think someone who has a habit I wouldn't condone for myself (or my children....etc..) shouldn't be heard, or shouldn't write - not at all. However, it does have an effect... and if it's true Freud was addicted to cocaine for many years, as I believe it is, the effect is rather pronounced. Especially with a mix of cocaine and excessive smoking, this inevitably produces a certain derangement on the mind. And about Freud, I don't find this unbelievable in the least. I have always felt that unhealthiness about him, in most of what he did.

I am not on a vendetta against him, and I know he has his own place and contributed a lot, and had good thoughts and ideas too; and helped psychology along. I cannot estimate how much good and how much detriment he has done to psychology and society, and it's not so important. When I compare it to Walt Whitman, however, for example; there is no comparison! Walt Whitman was strong and wholesome all the way through - insightful, poetic, courageous, perceptive, jovial; through and through he had good qualities and is a man to admire. As he spoke of the beauty and health of the body, I admired him, and when he said that he discovered the best way to quickly achieve perfect health is to live in nature, he speaks with some measure of authority and it also speaks to my experience. Enjoying nature becomes a little bit different when you must carry your habits of addictive drugs with you, and it also becomes distorted. Everything does.

In the cases of M.L. King Jr. and Gandhi, the case is much different. I believe M.L. King Jr. had some infidelity issues. These do not detract greatly from the unmistakable and perhaps immeasurable good he had done.

[The Atheist]

Generally, we are taught to believe that it is always better to embrace the truth--harsh and ugly as it often is. Believing lies is short-term gain, long-term lost.

I think the issue is with the word "truth" rather than the concept of what is better and I never use the word in a non-pejorative sense if I can help it.

To me, the essence is the evidence to support something. If there is a preponderance of empirical evidence, that's good enough for me.


So, if a belief system does good--and it doesn't necessarily have to be religious in nature (like in the episode, is it better that people believe a lie about a famous person if it inspires them to do good things or to know the truth)--is it better than a truth?

If you're looking for a doctrine which says truth or delusion is better, we'd need to see some of that empirical evidence, and it's sadly lacking.

I can point to low violence rates in secular countries and say that that suggests that secularism is better than theism, but even that tenuous point doesn't take into account whether theism has been replaced by some other form of mysticism/spirituality.

My gut instinct and half a century watching people tells me nothing either - I know empiricists who I'd gladly give an injection of petothal to and I know theists I have enormous respect for.

I do find that the whackier someone's belief is, the less likely they are to be a "good" person - in the humanistic sense - but I don't think there's a general guide.


No. I firmly, firmly believe in the statement that "the truth will set you free"

I always feel that just opens up the True Scotsman debate, and nobody ever gets to an agreement on what "truth" actually is. Since it's usually applied to metaphysical or moral matters, it doesn't really fit.

Mathematical truths, however, I like. Pity they don't call them that!

:D


I completely agree with it. And I also agree with Nik and dizzydoll, as they say that one should not speak of anything that one hasn't actually experienced, so I would not venture into anything related to mysticism or mystical experiences.

That is wrong.

I will never travel to Mars or Antarctica, but I'm happy to accept the evidence provided that they exist and behave as I expect them to.

It's a plea for magic.


It's an interesting question SilentMute. I guess before it can be answered you need to come to a landing on what 'truth' is. I find truth, as a concept, to be virtually non-existent and what people refer to as 'truth' to be nothing more than degrees of belief.

Bingo!


What is the objective but the collective subjective?

No.

If you can't understand that empiricism isn't subjective in any way, you should probably read Principia Mathematica.

1+2 always equals 3.


So is it good to reveal a truth to people who can't handle it?

While I do believe that the truth is better--I think it can be rather dangerous to take away mental crutches before people are ready to give them up...or lack something else to cling to.

Which in itself is a belief, and I worry that it's one promulgated by theists as a plea for special treatment - I frequently get asked, "what happens if having the sky-daddy taken away causes religious people to give up hope?"

My answer is that 99% of inmates in jail profess to be theists, so a belief in god/s doesn't stop people becoming murderers and rapists, while the example of secular countries shows that they don't degenerate into anarchic horror shows.

[Paulclem]

Have you heard of the phrase a useful fiction? The idea behind this is to lead someone towards a better/ more truthful explanation/ appreciation of something.

I believe it's the case that the physics taught to a certain level in school, is then overturned with Quantum physics. I'm not a scientst - I've just read this somewhere.

I also agree with The Atheist that you can talk about something you have not experienced, and perhaps to a more informed degree. Take a children's psychologist dealing with child abuse cases. Would you really expect them to have to had experienced child abuse themselves before they can claim any expertise? Clearly not.

[rabid reader]

Or, 'truth' is nothing less than degrees of belief lived out in each moment.

After reading this and the masterful post from Nik at the beginning of the thread I feel I can weigh in on the topic, though feel free to disregard.

Obviously for those who have read Nietzsche they know he spent a lot of time contemplating the idea of "truth" and of language as a whole. As Nik spoke of earlier of how he questions our desire to seek truth as opposed to untruth, but in On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense (forgive if I misrepresent I have lent out my portable Nietzsche), Nietzsche argues that truth while identified through language is nothing more then "an empty husk," as language is a process of our brain which applies reason as to explain sensations in our brain, these sensation cannot be universalized as they are subject interpretations:


It is the copy in sound of a nerve stimulus. But the further inference from the nerve stimulus to a cause outside of us is already the result of a false and unjustifiable application of the principle of sufficient reason. If truth alone had been the deciding factor in the genesis of language, and if the standpoint of certainty had been decisive for designations, then how could we still dare to say "the stone is hard," as if "hard" were something otherwise familiar to us, and not merely a totally subjective stimulation!

Meaning truth in the sense of language can never be universalized but merely an interpretation. he uses the example of saying a rock is hard, but hard is descriptive word which is innately subjective (look at the different types of firmness one can get a bed in), so to declare a universal truth whilst utilizing a subject premise is absolutely illogical. But this is not just true with physical items, anything that you must perceive to understand will fall victim of this as well; 400 people read the same book and have different insights into that book, some can understand whilst others can't, but if there is a "solid" unchangeable truth to language then everyone who understands that language should have the same understanding of a book and share the same insights. Thus if in this regard, Nietzsche would say denying something that is produced as an "absolute" truth is not only sensible but also not irrational.

A second point that Nietzsche raises in this same reading that I think might be relevant is the natural to want to know the "truth" when it best serves your needs, and that the human drive for enlightenment is nothing more then us not wanting to be out right lied to:


He says, for example, "I am rich," when the proper designation for his condition would be "poor." He misuses fixed conventions by means of arbitrary substitutions or even reversals of names. If he does this in a selfish and moreover harmful manner, society will cease tot rust him and will there by exclude him. What men avoid by excluding the liar is not so much being defrauded as it is being harmed by means of fraud. Thus, even at this stage, what they hate is basically not deception itself, but rather the unpleasant, hated consequences of certain sorts of deception.

Now it is important to note that Nietzsche is not talking about morality here, he is not saying that lying is good or bad, what he is saying here is what people like to hear or not, the type of lying people dislike is that type that would lead to distrust, like one lying about the weather, "It's rain"---"Ah, dude, no its not, its sunny and you're at the beach, you a moron?"

So when considering Nietzsche's opinion I think he wouldn't be admittedly opposed to willful ignorance. Also when considering what Nietzsche writes of the "herd" in Thus Spake Zarathustra he says that some people cannot handle enlightenment, saying that they need "God" and though they cannot obtain the level of Overman that the culture shock they would experience from the Overman exposing their beliefs would be more detrimental (will cite when I get my book back this weekend).

Now that I got the What is truth, lies and enlightenment, comes the age old question, what is "Good?" What is meant by good? I cannot even venture a guess without alienation. Which is why I wish there was another option "Who am I to know what is good for all?"

With regards to telling others whats good for them or not, when asked my opinion I give it apologetically and if I saw someone walking toward a cliff without any regards to stopping I would point out that the space they walk toward is a cliff. Would I stop them from killing themselves? No, but I feel giving people their options and letting them chose the only "truth" I can morally justify within myself.

Sorry once again if i misquote or if there are dissenting opinions of Nietzsche's stand on this topic. I am doing my MA in Philosophy but sadly not a Nietzsche scholar.

[soundofmusic]

:confused5:Am I missing something; or is everyone still trying to decide what "Truth" is for the purpose of this discussion; I kind of thought truth was just a relative/theoretical concept here:banghead:

[The Atheist]

It usually is.

The only places I know that make claims on "truth" usually have blokes in long dresses in them and have cute bells they ring on Sundays.

[SilentMute]

You know, I just realize something about this question...and again, I apologize for not clarifying, but I didn't realize what I was asking. It wasn't until I read Keilj's answer that I realized what I was asking.

My grandparents were part of a religious cult for years. The man who was ahead of it was horribly corrupt. He took the people's money, he was involved in illegal activities, he was a suspect in a murder, he was a pedophile, etc. He was the worst of human beings. Now, frankly, I am glad the law caught up with him. Under no circumstances, do I think he deserves to be out in decent society.

But this is what got me. As horrible as a person as he was, as much as he abused and exploited people, it seemed as if his followers thrived under his leadership. Their relationships with their mates and their children were better. They didn't get themselves into financial problems. They helped out less fortunate members of their church. They were inspired to be better people because they believe this man was a god.

When he left, it all disintegrated. I couldn't understand it--but I just realized something. An untrue belief can only inspire good, I think, in someone who is morally deficient--or else incapable of thinking for themselves. If those people had morals to begin with, they wouldn't have followed that man for one thing--but even if he had fooled them, they wouldn't have abandoned the good morals.

So, that isn't me. Even if a scientist did take away my religious beliefs, I probably would find a way to replace them.

I hope you guys don't mind that I am using the threads to sort things out. I am in a period of self-evaluation and reflection. Still, I think it is a good debate...but it has helped me sort things out. And I thank you for it--since you have helped me by responding.

[NikolaiI]

That is wrong.

I will never travel to Mars or Antarctica, but I'm happy to accept the evidence provided that they exist and behave as I expect them to.

It's a plea for magic.

Yea... that is true... but it may be Mumuksha was talking about religious matters. I've said a similar thing before and if you think about it another way you would probably agree with it more than anyone. It's wrong to speak of experiences as though you had them. It's wrong of you to say that you've been to Mars, not necessarily to talk about what it might be like. Similarly, it's wrong of you to say you've spoken to God or seen God... or to claim to any special powers you don't have.


I believe she meant one shouldn't speak of experiences one hasn't had, as though one has had them. It's certainly not wrong to speak of the activities of others (such as going to the moon - or anything). But it would be wrong to say that you had gone to the moon, as it would also be wrong to say you met your dead grandfather in a dream, if you haven't.


I also agree with The Atheist that you can talk about something you have not experienced, and perhaps to a more informed degree. Take a children's psychologist dealing with child abuse cases. Would you really expect them to have to had experienced child abuse themselves before they can claim any expertise? Clearly not.

No, but it would be wrong of someone to say they met their grandfather in a dream if they had not. Or to say they could see the future if they can't, or read minds... any kind of lying like this is wrong.

You are taking it out of context, as is TA. Would you agree then with someone speaking of a mystical experience they never had? Wouldn't you find that quite annoying? And woulnd't you never do that?


It seems pretty clear to me that you have misunderstood that poster, for whom English is a second language, after all, although they have better English than most Americans, I would say. This happens so often; and then the people who misunderstood hammer the point which wasn't made in the first place, or wasn't intended.


I completely agree with it. And I also agree with Nik and dizzydoll, as they say that one should not speak of anything that one hasn't actually experienced, so I would not venture into anything related to mysticism or mystical experiences. But truth and untruth is something we inevitably come to experience. And that's why I'm so certain that truth is the only answer. If I ever felt untruth would be better in any given situation, eventually it proved to be the contrary every time. So from experience and a genuine conviction I would always endorse truth.

Is what you are saying - it's wrong to claim mystical vision just as it's wrong to claim mystical powers one doesn't have? Just as it's wrong to claim expert knowledge of a subject you don't have? It seems you are simply saying it's wrong to claim an experience you don't have. I believe everyone would agree with this.

I also agree that truth and untruth both come to us in our lives without our effort, and it's a good point.

[The Atheist]

But this is what got me. As horrible as a person as he was, as much as he abused and exploited people, it seemed as if his followers thrived under his leadership. Their relationships with their mates and their children were better. They didn't get themselves into financial problems. They helped out less fortunate members of their church. They were inspired to be better people because they believe this man was a god.

When he left, it all disintegrated. I couldn't understand it--but I just realized something. An untrue belief can only inspire good, I think, in someone who is morally deficient--or else incapable of thinking for themselves. If those people had morals to begin with, they wouldn't have followed that man for one thing--but even if he had fooled them, they wouldn't have abandoned the good morals.

Not wanting to get off your subject, but this happens all the time. Crikey, the names I could reel off of blokes who've been sent to jail for that exact crime list. And yes, they all came from extremely strong and supportive groups.


Yea... that is true... but it may be Mumuksha was talking about religious matters.

Paul gave a much better example - my metaphors are always too physical.

:D


I've said a similar thing before and if you think about it another way you would probably agree with it more than anyone. It's wrong to speak of experiences as though you had them. It's wrong of you to say that you've been to Mars, not necessarily to talk about what it might be like.

Absolutely!!


Similarly, it's wrong of you to say you've spoken to God or seen God... or to claim to any special powers you don't have.

I agree with that as well, but it's not the same thing in terms of proof. People can think they're talking to god and simply be deluded. That's why the supernatural/paranormal is so attractive - it's entirely self-referencing. Others can soothe your confirmation bias by telling you they have the same feeling, because the delusion can manifest itself physically, but the only evidence will ever be internal.

[Dodo25]

A subtle response to the question comes from Fyodor Dostoevsky. He once asserted that even if it were proved that Jesus Christ never existed, he would believe in Christ.


That settled it, I am not going to read Dostoevsky anytime soon. It would just make me mad.

I don't understand how people choose to believe in whatever gives them comfort. I mean there are people in this thread openly admitting that they believe in things because it makes them feel better. What about truth? To me, truth is really all that matters. Everything else is cheating. Just my opinion, everyone else is of course entitled to theirs, even if 'less true'.

[NikolaiI]

That settled it, I am not going to read Dostoevsky anytime soon. It would just make me mad.

I don't understand how people choose to believe in whatever gives them comfort. I mean there are people in this thread openly admitting that they believe in things because it makes them feel better. What about truth? To me, truth is really all that matters. Everything else is cheating. Just my opinion, everyone else is of course entitled to theirs, even if 'less true'.

That is far worse than even judging a book by its cover. If you would exclude an author because of that what one person randomly said - which may or may not be true, may or may not be in context, and may or may not have an effect on an other-wise brilliant body of work, then you are really missing out. Especially since you chose Dostoevsky, one of the greatest writers of fiction, Russian or other. Especially since he's not a quack and also had a notable impact on socio-spiritual culture of his country.

[Sebas. Melmoth]

As Pontius Pilatus asked of Messiah, 'What is [the] Truth?'

[NikolaiI]

Paul gave a much better example - my metaphors are always too physical.

Well, he gave a different one, but not exactly better. Not if we can say - and it looks as though you agree with this to some extent immediately after - that Mumuksha was saying that one should not claim experiences as one own, that one hasn't had.

I guess... it's rather tedious to go back like this but it also seems necessary when people try to prove others wrong but simply have misunderstood them...

[Dodo25]

That is far worse than even judging a book by its cover. If you would exclude an author because of that what one person randomly said - which may or may not be true, may or may not be in context, and may or may not have an effect on an other-wise brilliant body of work, then you are really missing out. Especially since you chose Dostoevsky, one of the greatest writers of fiction, Russian or other. Especially since he's not a quack and also had a notable impact on socio-spiritual culture of his country.

I see how you can think that from reading my post. Keep in mind though that it's not the first time I've seen people write such things about Dostoevsky. I heard many other things going into that direction. I'm aware that he is considered (one of) the greatest writer of all time. I'm not a person who reads for the sake of reading though. I want to have fun reading, and I want to learn new things or ways of thinking. From what I've heard, his books seem to have 'messages' that I consider wrong.

Also, I said 'not anytime soon'. I may read it sometime.

[NikolaiI]

I see how you can think that from reading my post. Keep in mind though that it's not the first time I've seen people write such things about Dostoevsky. I heard many other things going into that direction. I'm aware that he is considered (one of) the greatest writer of all time. I'm not a person who reads for the sake of reading though. I want to have fun reading, and I want to learn new things or ways of thinking. From what I've heard, his books seem to have 'messages' that I consider wrong.

Also, I said 'not anytime soon'. I may read it sometime.

Well I'm really sorry you had to hear so many slanders on his name. Trust me they were slanders. If you read his stories I think you'll love them; and if you read about his life after you read his stories, I think you'll admire him for his ability to endure some pretty bad circumstances, and perhaps admire his achievements even more.

[Dodo25]

Well I'm really sorry you had to hear so many slanders on his name. Trust me they were slanders. If you read his stories I think you'll love them; and if you read about his life after you read his stories, I think you'll admire him for his ability to endure some pretty bad circumstances, and perhaps admire his achievements even more.

The way I understood it, people like the books BECAUSE of these religious themes.

But fair enough, I'll keep your opinion in mind too, and given the fact that it really is world literature in it's highest form, if ever I decide to read something for the sake of 'general education' instead of just my entertainment and my pursuit of knowledge, then I will read Dostoevsky first, or second after Dickens.

[Gladys]

I don't understand how people choose to believe in whatever gives them comfort...What about truth? To me, truth is really all that matters.

You do Dostoevsky an injustice if you imagine comfort in his 'even if it were proved that Jesus Christ never existed, he would believe in Christ'. Not comfort, but the brilliant illumination gleaned from a life well lived!


The way I understood it, people like the books BECAUSE of these religious themes.


For me, Dostoevesky's themes are more those of extraordinary compassion, for instance, Sonia and Lizaveta in Crime and Punishment, Prince Myshkin and Vera Lebedev in The Idiot, and Alyosha in Brothers Karamazov.


As Pontius Pilatus asked of Messiah, 'What is [the] Truth?'

Kierkegaard observed, 'Paganism never gets nearer the truth than Pilate: What is truth? And with that crucifies it'. This quote, and Dostoevsky's, are testaments to a life well lived. Neither of these quotes mandate Christian interpretations.