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

[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!

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]

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

[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.

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.