Does truth matter?

In the ongoing tradition of replies that deserve their own blog post. This one is a follow-up to the “Ada Lovelace was not the first computer programmer” thread.

Emotion, to me, is my starting point; it is also an important element of the way I communicate.

..

I also think that truth is just about anything anybody else wants it to be. ‘Truth’ is a word that is available to me in sea of many other words.

This reminds me of when, discussing God with religious people, if a person says that god is a faith issue for them then there is no point arguing anymore because you have boiled it down the fundamental difference between that person’s view of the world and yours. This is similar to you and I.

Truth is subjective.. Your emotions are your guide.. That is a view I can neither understand nor condone.

Truth is not whatever we want it to be. I believe there is a standard of truth that transcends our emotions and perceptions. That is why I go through efforts to clarify what I am talking about, in this instance that the claims that Ada Lovelace was “the first programmer” are false. You don’t get to answer “yes” or “no” depending on whatever you feel you want to, there is only one answer. Whatever you want to define as a program, if you make the statement that Ada was the first to write it, then the fact that Babbage wrote it for her nullifies the idea that she was the first making the answer a “no”. Plain and simple. The question of whether Babbage was the first is separate, and “giving her the benefit of the doubt” is wishful delusion.

Living on emotions is a bad idea. Should the anti-Semite live on his or her hate? Does the racial lies they tell about Jews, which are truly believed by themselves, be the “starting point” for them? Do my protestations over the claim that that Jews slaughter non-Jews in order to use their blood for knead matzes for Passover [1] get legitimately pushed aside against claims that “emotions are my starting point” or does the truth matter?

The world is full of untruths; these are worse than lies because they are normally believed sincerely and thus are much more dangerous, the architect of untruth is emotion. Our societies are filled with victim ideologies like feminism and blackism which keep people in enshrined in a miasma of hateful emotion about how abused they are. This enables them to rationalise the evil their abuse of others. Emotional thinking is perhaps the cause of most of the evil in the world. Lesser versions of this effect cause people to raise other people like Ada Lovelace on a pedestal, the reason is to make themselves feel better, to satiate their own self worth by raising it for another person of the same group as they are, therefore raising themselves with it. It is not something that secure people do.

Your worldview is wrong. Truth is important and it is not whatever you want it to be.

 

Sources

[1] http://missingpeace.eu/en/articles/132-articles/11-salah-soltan-repeats-blood-libel-while-attending-a-conference-about-interfaith-and-coexistence

Posted on: Saturday, July 17, 2010 5:08 PM
Share this post: email it, bookmark It, digg It, kick It

Comments

  1. Posted by: goLookGoRead on 7/18/2010 6:45 AM
    Gravatar
    Mark,
    I say something about myself and you have turned it into something untrue, anti-semitic, and hateful. Why are you exaggerating in such an unkind way?

    The Jewish tradition understands emotion and intellect together are truth - it illuminates people to behave appropriately - by the word pronounced: 'Havayah' which incorporates both emotion and reason.

    Truth is what you want it to be... that is what I said originally. Have you just helped to prove my original point with me? Perhaps you have.
  2. Posted by: Mark on 7/18/2010 4:28 PM
    Gravatar
    I say something about myself and you have turned it into something untrue, anti-semitic, and hateful. Why are you exaggerating in such an unkind way?


    I am disappointed with your response. However, upon close though it is perhaps the kind of response to be expected from someone who’s philosophy is based upon emotion. I challenge you to re-read that paragraph I wrote (after calming down so your emotions don’t pollute your objectivity) and point out where I attributed those views to you. Since there was no intent to do so I would be interested to hear what language made you think this? Actually think about it a little more, how would I even know if you were an anti-Semite or not? Have you said anything that could even cause such a claim from me?

    Truth is what you want it to be... that is what I said originally. Have you just helped to prove my original point with me? Perhaps you have.


    Up is down and down is up. No. The sad fact of the matter is that you have proven my point.

    Your emotions led you to construct an imaginary world where I said things that I didn’t say and it led you to fashion an image of me that had no basis in reality. When we look at feminism and the twisted world that radical feminists exist in, we can hopefully see how the modes of thought that those feminist utilise aren’t too different from the kind you used.

    Emotional thinking does murder to rational thought. I didn’t call you an anti-Semite. I didn’t even come close. There was no intention to do so. Not one iota.
    However, had I not corrected you (and hopefully have you accept that correction), then you would have taken an erroneous image of the world with you. Have many delusions do you currently have that are the result of your emotional thinking that you don’t know about?
  3. Posted by: TDOM on 7/19/2010 4:56 AM
    Gravatar
    What is or is not true is frequently dependent upon perspective. how one defines truth is a fundamental philosophical argument. There are several ways of looking at it. On e of the best discussion of the definition of truth can be found at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I tend to believe that "Truth is" where "is" is a state of being. This is not unlike the pragmatist version where "Truth is the end of inquiry." It is even somewhat consistent with correspondence theory where "A belief is true if and only if it is part of a coherent system of beliefs."


    The pragmatic interpretation considers that an absolute truth does exist, but can only be known if and only if every possible question has been asked and answered and no further questions remain. Correspondence theory suggests that truth is not necessarily absolute, but exists within a belief system and is only true as long as the belief system remains intact. Thus the statement the world is flat would have been "true" prior to Columbus' discovery of America.

    Therefore, Ada Lovelace could be considred the first computer programmer if and only if the belief system that holds her out as such is unquestionable and if that belief system has not been shown to be untrue. there is then, room for both a rational, objective truth and an emotional (faith-based) truth that has not been shown to be untrue. A religious person can hold out a belief that God exists as true until it can be shown that God does not exist. At the same time an atheist can hold out a belief that God does not exist as true, until it can be shown that He does exist. Both of these "truths" can be true at the same time until there are no more questions to be asked and inquiry is ended. At that time only one truth will remain.

    -TDOM
  4. Posted by: aHuman on 7/19/2010 9:07 AM
    Gravatar
    Sorry TDOM, but that view is not for me. I'm talking about the one that defines truth as a matter of perception. Our perception is never entirely reliable. We're connected to the outside world by nothing other than 5 very limited and inaccurate senses. This view basically asserts, though quietly, that truth is ultimately just what you believe it to be.

    "A religious person can hold out a belief that God exists as true until it can be shown that God does not exist."

    So I could concoct any absurd idea and all I have to do in order for it to qualify as true is to make it not disprovable. How about the Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster? One of his (or her) characteristics is that he can never be proven not to exist because all our knowledge/perception is influenced by him so we don't find him.

    Now you could say: how do you know there isn't such an entity? Although that question is legitimate, it is also useless in advancing any understanding or knowledge. Or to put it another way, once we qualify anything as true that can't be or hasn't yet been proven untrue, we have an infinite number of entities and statements that exist/are true but have no effect on anything else in the universe. Call it "dark information" if you want (I should patent that phrase and get rich). For anyone who seeks to understand and advance knowledge this version of truth is utterly useless.
    So all we're really left with is the pragmatic definition you gave us.



  5. Posted by: TDOM on 7/19/2010 9:47 AM
    Gravatar
    @ aHuman
    I'm talking about the one that defines truth as a matter of perception. Our perception is never entirely reliable. We're connected to the outside world by nothing other than 5 very limited and inaccurate senses. This view basically asserts, though quietly, that truth is ultimately just what you believe it to be.

    So I could concoct any absurd idea and all I have to do in order for it to qualify as true is to make it not disprovable. How about the Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster? One of his (or her) characteristics is that he can never be proven not to exist because all our knowledge/perception is influenced by him so we don't find him.


    I am well aware that our senses are flawed and our perceptions never completely reliable. Philosophers and psychologists have debated and studied this phenomenon to death. I won't go into it here. But you have left out the part about "a coherent system of beliefs" which makes the truth more than just what one believes it to be. A belief must fit into a system of beliefs in order to be true. Thus, unless your system of beliefs allows you to beleive in a "Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster" such a concept could not be true. To a four year old, Santa Claus may truly exist because his existence is not inconsistent with the belief system of a four year old. Therefore, the child is telling the truth when he states that Santa brought him presents for Christmas. As he grows older and his belief system changes, such a statement may no longer be true.

    I would also argue that since truth requires a "coherent" system of beliefs, that in order to be coherent, such a system would have to be held by more than one person, or perhaps by many people. This, in fact, may be a distinguishing characteristic between truth and delusion. A person suffering from a delusion may very well believe that he saw a "Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster," but if no one else saw it, would it be true?


    I reconcile the two theories of truth with the belief that truth can be both subjective and objective, that it can be both relative and absolute. We can comprehend the subjective and the relative, while seeking the objective and absolute. We must use our current knowlege and perception to create a coherent system of beliefs in order to determine what is true according to that system of beliefs while continuously questioning those beliefs in search of absolutes. Thus the four year old will eventually realize that Santa Claus does not actually exist.

    -TDOM
  6. Posted by: goLookGoRead on 7/19/2010 1:42 PM
    Gravatar
    I will try my best. I am also assuming that emotion is my starting point, even though I understand that I shall be treading on dangerous waters again, according to my assumed “philosophy (not my word) based upon emotion”.

    1. There is a language embedded in your response, a language of inference by association, that both video links about ‘Salah Soltan and the blood libel’ interrupt with, neither video were anything at all to do with my original response, which was regarding Ada and Babbage. Why did you include as links in the response if you did not wish to do so for confrontational effect?

    I will answer you back with a different inference by association, another video clip link: http://www.funnieststuff.net/viewmovie.php?id=1780
    It expresses an emotion about freedom and work. This team of workers are not using reason, they are using their emotions. Through emotion they do crazy stuff that’s absolutely fantastic.

    Another example of inference by association, as for: “(after calming down so your emotions don’t pollute your objectivity)” but from the context of my starting emotional point: http://media2.yourdailymedia.com/files/YDXz9938ZmPu.wmv

    If I had been talking about political islam, then your two linked videos would have been appropriate to my points about “My Take on Ada” – They, your linked videos, were neither “yes”, “no”, “up” or “down” (unlike my first video here which is), they were just there, making a contradictory inference by association that is unrelated to Ada, mine however, they are related to my emotional starting point and the inference by association that I am expressing about freedom and work, it is an emotional and visual grammar that communicates via my web browser, my eyes and my emotions… to my starting point.

    2. Your reference to source [1] in your response: “Salah Soltan blood libel while attending a conference about interfaith and coexistence”

    A video with an inconclusive outcome, and with negative emotional reverberations of events which happened to Jews during 1840 and do ‘inference by association’ to a kind of authoritarian propaganda founded in the Middle Ages – the blood libel. The language is intrinsically one of Catholic-Christian religious belief, when they did not condone Jews.

    Who is being insensitive to whom in the videos you link to? There seems to be a confrontation between the two men in the video… the Dutch man, who is wearing the flag of Israel around his neck, inference by association, who keeps confronting Salah Soltan about the Damascus blood libel comments he had made in the past. But I can see, even though I do not understand either the spoken or the written languages, that the over-imposed script does not follow what is really happening or what is being said in the conference room, because the script carries on, even when Salah Soltan is sat down with his mouth shut for some time.

    The video itself creates inference by association by over-transcribing the words he spoke in one statement sometime in the past, to the video of the conference being represented three months later. The emotional gestures of Salah Soltan are different in the first video to what they are in the second video. Salah justifies the different emotions by saying: “…actually, we came here to find out the one area to talk and to be close to each other. This topic is not included here… we come here to find all the ways to contact with each other, to open the mind, to …(can’t understand)… and present meaning, evidence, from the Koran and the Sunna and the prayers of Prophet Muhammad and the practice of …(can’t understand)… on how they deal with each other and this is the aim we come here for…” However, the interview seems like a confrontation of words taking place moments before the delegates are taking a ‘prayer’ break.

    This is my where my emotional sympathies lie with regards to the Damascus blood libel: http://www.jewishhistory.org/the-damascus-blood-libel/ - also an inference by association, and one that is (almost?) totally disconnected (disappointed?) to my starting point on Ada and Babbage.

    3. “I would be interested to hear what language made you think this?”

    Why do you feel the need to use the word ‘pollute’ I wonder? Like in: “…so your emotions don’t pollute your objectivity”?

    The blood libel does not have anything to do with Ada or Babbage. I thought that I was discussing Ada’s alleged collaborations with Babbage on the alleged ‘programming’ of the Analytical Engine, not the Damascus blood libel. Like Salah said “… this topic is not included here… “, but the topic was represented as a visual, hence emotional, grammar with your response.
  7. Posted by: aHuman on 7/21/2010 7:57 PM
    Gravatar
    @TDOM
    That sounds to me like you're defining the truth to suit a system of beliefs that you wish to call true.

    If I take it correctly then, by your definition, anyone who isn't intentionally lying, is telling the truth. This definition obviously fails to account for mistakes or lack of knowledge. The child who believes in Santa is not telling the truth because it wasn't given sufficient knowledge to decide what is true. Or do you call any belief system coherent that doesn't contradict another? That will result in the same problems I described.

    For example, we all know that religious belief systems are far from coherent. However, throughout history, people have always tried to make them coherent by either changing the belief or just ignoring the incoherence. Today that seems futile and yet we still have people trying to reduce their religion to something that the logical part of their brains can live with. For example, they reduce it just to a god that can't be proven not to exist.
    The funny thing is that this still contradicts the OTHER religions in our world unless they also all reduce their religion to that though we're still left with the monotheism vs polytheism battle. Other than that, those belief systems would be identical and there would be no point in having more than one.

    My problem with your interpretation of truth is that it enables people to decide what they want to be true (based on emotions or anything else that has no relevance) and then make up a story that fits around it so as to make it qualify as true.

    Instead of referring to a "coherent system of beliefs" which is also only subjective, I'd rather make the case that the truth cannot contradict a system of truths that depend on each other. For example, Christianity cannot be true as long as it contains statements about reality that contradict the truth that we know about reality. Now you might say that we can't be sure that that truth is any better. In that case you'd have to declare them BOTH untrue and research until one of them is shown to be more coherent (for lack of a better word).

    I have a much more interesting example than Santa: Pythagoras theorem has been proven in many ways for millennia. Yet, in the 19th century, a great mathematician still found it necessary to experiment with an enormous triangle and measure it as precisely as he could.
    He didn't find anything wrong but the exciting is that, if his measurements had been accurate enough, he would have! It was the early days of what later would become known as general relativity.

    Now religious people will jump at this happily and say "you see? proof isn't reliable either" and they'd be wrong. Pythagoras isn't untrue because it doesn't work in curved space. It only means that it's applicability is reduced to normal space. Those proofs are still perfectly valid as is Pythagoras - just not in curved space.

    The Santa story is not only false, it never was anything but false. It was fake from the start and had no basis in reality. Same goes for the FSM. But you would still have it qualify as true as long as we can find a young enough child who doesn't yet have the means of thinking critically to fool into believing it. All we have to do is answer their questions with dishonesty and deceive them so as to not shake the story. Now, how do you know that that isn't happening on a more sophisticated level to you as an adult?

    So we're back to the point of anyone calling something true depending on what THEY believe or think. In other words, "it's true because it's true to me". And my problem with it is the same as before: It's unusable for understanding and knowledge. All it does is make people feel good about themselves.

    Here is a REALLY pragmatic but often useful way to tell if something is untrue when it's hard to be objective:
    If the truth makes you feel better about yourself or confirms your moral integrity or somehow makes you feel comfortable, then it is probably not true but just what you want to believe. It works nearly every time. Give it a try.
  8. Posted by: goLookGoRead on 7/22/2010 12:34 PM
    Gravatar
    Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    is a great resource.

    This website is a great place to come to help broaden the mind, and this is the aspect I appreciate the most about many themes in this blog.

    Definitions of truth can so easily begin to sound dogmatic or cloudy. I suppose there is a limit to what my brain is able to imagine and understand. I however take my hand to my heart and admit, in all honesty, that truth does make me feel better about myself, and it hasn't anything to do with moral integrity nor comfort.

    aHuman's contribution has reminded me of a line from a play-song that I used to sing in chorus with my friends at one of my various schools:
    "Io son come Tomasso e non ci credo finche li tocco il naso!"
    Translated from Italian:
    "I am like Thomas, and I don't believe in it until I can touch its nose"

    I tried your truth test four times today, and it did not work. I'm all mixed up now. I'm now not even sure I understood the instructions. What, What? THAT much failure! Honestly! The human brain is so full of truth.
  9. Posted by: goLookGoRead on 7/23/2010 2:22 AM
    Gravatar
    My own 'consonant' for many years has been to be a sympathizer of Simple Living.
    This is another website-blog that I also really appreciate - It does offer some background about some of Pythagoras' other qualities:
    http://www.hermitary.com/articlereviews/bremmer.html
  10. Posted by: TDOM on 7/23/2010 5:09 AM
    Gravatar
    @aHuman

    If I take it correctly then, by your definition, anyone who isn't intentionally lying, is telling the truth. This definition obviously fails to account for mistakes or lack of knowledge.


    Truth is relative under my definition. At least any "known" truth is relative. While I do belive an absolute truth may exist, I do not believe it can be known. Therefore all truth is relative to the facts as we know them and is subject to change as more facts are presented.

    For example, we all know that religious belief systems are far from coherent.


    While religious may not always be logical or reasonable, they are intelligible and understandable. This makes them coherent. It does not mean we must believe them, but we can understand them.

    Instead of referring to a "coherent system of beliefs" which is also only subjective, I'd rather make the case that the truth cannot contradict a system of truths that depend on each other. For example, Christianity cannot be true as long as it contains statements about reality that contradict the truth that we know about reality. Now you might say that we can't be sure that that truth is any better. In that case you'd have to declare them BOTH untrue and research until one of them is shown to be more coherent (for lack of a better word).


    Here is where you are discussing "absolute truth" as opposed to "relative truth." Absolute truth is what remains once all possible questions have been asked and answered. It is not knowable. It may not even exist (though I believe it does). Relative truth is based upon what is known. It is what we must live with and work with on a daily basis. It is what is used in the pursuit of absolute truth and must change to account for new or changing information.

    If we declare everything we know to be untrue until we reach the absolute truth, then we know nothing. Relative truth is how we make sense of what we think we know. In his Meditations on First Philosophy, Rene Descartes deconstructed reality declaring that the only thing he could actually know is that he is a thinking being. Beyond that, he could prove nothing. He attempted to reconstruct reality, but his attempt required a faith in the existance of God, thus even that could not be known.

    Truth is not merely what we decide it is, it must be extracted from what we think we know. At some point it requires a leap of faith, whether we put that faith in God, science, Santa Claus, or a flying spaghetti monster.

    @goLookRead

    The Stanford Encyclopedia is one of my favorite resources. Almost everything you need to know concerning philosophical arguments can be found there.

    TDOM
  11. Posted by: aHuman on 7/23/2010 11:33 AM
    Gravatar
    No we shouldn't declare anything we don't know as untrue. But we also shouldn't declare everything we know or understand as true - relative or not. I understand now that you consider any truth we use as relative. While I'm fine with taking absolute truth as a virtually unreachable quality (i.e. we can never really know anything), I'm not fine with the resulting lack of rigor on the other end of the spectrum (i.e. anything we know and understand has a relative truth to it). By this definition of "relative truth", we lose all qualitative meaning in the word 'truth'. It becomes something we can manufacture at will. Perhaps the solution is to find more than just two variants.

    Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" is perhaps the most famous example of circular reasoning. In this case his leap of faith was to declare his existence? Well if you're going to take a leap of faith, may as well go for the grandest of them all.

    While I understand there must be a leap of faith somewhere, shouldn't it ring alarm bells when the central point of an argument is itself a leap of faith (such as Descartes)? It is one thing when a statement is critically assessed with a number of small leaps of faith (such as the assumption that my eyes are showing me the information as is and not obscuring it). But it is an entirely different matter when the leap of faith becomes the answer to a pertinent question. Otherwise I could tell you that 1=2 and say the leap of faith is to believe that 1=2.

  12. Posted by: TDOM on 7/23/2010 3:08 PM
    Gravatar
    @aHuman

    Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" is perhaps the most famous example of circular reasoning. In this case his leap of faith was to declare his existence?


    Descartes leap of faith was not in proving his own existence, it was in proving the existence of everything else. For this, he had to declare that God exists (an oversimplification, but fairly accurate). That Descartes could prove his own existence without relying on anything other than himself to do so, is perhaps the closest thing to an absolute truth that we have ever achieved.

    I'm not fine with the resulting lack of rigor on the other end of the spectrum (i.e. anything we know and understand has a relative truth to it). By this definition of "relative truth", we lose all qualitative meaning in the word 'truth'. It becomes something we can manufacture at will.


    This is where we get hung up. I do not believe that we can manufacture truth at will. For something to be true, it must be consistent with everything else we know (a coherent system of belief). Truth is relative, but it is relative to what we know (or think we know since what we know can change). I simply cannot say that a flying spaghetti monster exisits and have it be true just because I want it to be true. It is inconsistent with my coherent system of belief. Truth is relative, it is not arbitrary.

    A 4 year old who believes in Santa Claus, can state that Santa brought him presents for Christmas and for him it is true relative to what he knows. It may not be true for you relative to what you know and you may use your knowlege to teach the 4 year old that Santa does not exist. At that point it will no longer be true for the 4 year old either.

    Perhaps a better example would be of witnesses testifying about a traffic accident. Each testifies truthfully about what they saw. However, their testimony differs drastically because they saw the accident from a different perspective and know different things about the accident. If they discussed what they each saw, they each may view things differently and have an entirely different truth. None of the witnesses were lying. They were each telling the truth that was consistent with their coherent system of beliefs.

    In order to prevent the truth from losing meaning as you claim it would, we must continually question what we know to be truth. We must also continually adjust what we know to be true to make it consistent with anything we learn as we ask these questions. This is the scientific process. It is how we build knowlege and move closer to the absolute truth.

    TDOM
  13. Posted by: aHuman on 7/24/2010 4:09 AM
    Gravatar
    That sounds a lot better to me but I'm confused now as to how you define a "coherent system of beliefs". It seems to vary greatly. Earlier you said it only needs to be intelligible and understandable thus giving it a free pass to contradict any other (coherent) system of beliefs. And now you require it to "be consistent with everything else we know" (which is basically what I suggested to be the basis for our [pragmatic] definition of the word truth).
  14. Posted by: TDOM on 7/24/2010 5:53 AM
    Gravatar
    @aHuman

    That sounds a lot better to me but I'm confused now as to how you define a "coherent system of beliefs".


    It is difficult to discuss such issues with clarity in a forum such as this. Entire books have been written on the matter. I think part of being intelligible and understandable is maintaining consistency with what is known. If what we know about life and spaghetti would make it impossible for a flying spaghetti monster to exist, it would make it quite difficult to make an intelligible and understandable argument that such a beast does exist. Therefore I think that consistency with what we know goes hand in hand with being intelligible and understandable.

    TDOM
  15. Posted by: goLookGoRead on 7/24/2010 1:33 PM
    Gravatar
    I also think that truth is just about anything anybody else wants it to be. ‘Truth’ is a word that is available to me in sea of many other words.


    You explained about 'truth' more coherently than me TDOM. My sentence above is intended to say the same thing - but I have actually said it in a sloppy way: 'anything anybody else wants it to be' and 'is a word in a sea of many other words'

    It is difficult to discuss such issues with clarity in a forum such as this


    The first nine words in your sentence suffice for me.
  16. Posted by: Mark on 7/25/2010 9:17 PM
    Gravatar
    @goLookGoRead: Sorry about the late response. Professional obligations and stuff.

    Your reply was disappointing. The tactics of strawman and red herrings are not going to divert me so stop trying to. This is not a debate about Jewish blood libels or pretending that emotions have no place in the world whatsoever, this debate is about basing your worldview or philosophy on approaching that worldview on emotions.

    When I look at what you’ve wrote. I see emotion everywhere. Not in the sense that you are screaming at me or anything like that, but in the sense that you seem to be operating under cognitive biases that are fuelled by emotion.

    Take, for example, the blood libel issue. An unbiased person should look at that and see it in the sense that I meant it in. That it was an extreme example, as people wanting to strongly bolster a point must do, that demonstrates that people who make such disgusting blood libels are clearly being led by their emotions of hate. It relates to the issue at hand and it was not, in any way directed at you. You blew up at this, which is a completely unreasonable emotional reaction. I explain and you still won’t accept. You say things like “well why would you say this unless..”.

    This is textbook dissonance reduction. To admit your position was wrong would be to also tacitly admit that your emotional worldview failed to serve you well in this instance. Instead you are reducing the dissonance in your mind by questioning my motives yet again. Better to rationalise away then to admit you were wrong.

    Human conversation involves examples and analogies. The conflation of the analogy to become the subject of the conversation is the refuge of a person who seeks to flee the original subject matter. You should understand this. You’re not stupid. You would understand this if you were observing a topic you had no emotional investment in but in this one your objectivity fails.

    I think this all goes to prove my point yet more. When I think about the subject, I become more and more convinced in the absolute disaster of basing one’s worldviews on emotion. It’s not just about blatant emotional displays such as joy, sadness, anger, etc. But cognitive blind spots that disable us from rational thought. This is why I use the world “pollute” it inhibits our understanding of the world. People believe things primarily because they want to, this is powered by emotion. So the emotional model means that you believe whatever you want to believe. When you come to understand this, then the reaction must surely be doubt and self-introspection. How to I know whether I have fallen into these cognitive pitfalls?

    I have specifically chosen paths in life that eschew the fallibilities of human nature. Scientific thinking, with its embracement of error and evidence. Skepticism with its similar emphasis of proof. Social psychology and its gift of allowing us to understand why others as well as ourselves and why we believe what we believe. The principles of freedom, non-coercion and balance in all things which allow systems to get equal shrift and to stop other, possibly wrong systems to dominate all other views. All of these are based upon the wisdom of life. Emotional thinking is what comes naturally to the young who, naturally, have not yet accumulated wisdom from life.
  17. Posted by: goLookGoRead on 7/26/2010 3:17 PM
    Gravatar
    Mark,

    I have specifically chosen paths in life that eschew the fallibilities of human nature. Scientific thinking, with its embracement of error and evidence. Skepticism with its similar emphasis of proof. Social psychology and its gift of allowing us to understand why others as well as ourselves and why we believe what we believe. The principles of freedom, non-coercion and balance in all things which allow systems to get equal shrift and to stop other, possibly wrong systems to dominate all other views. All of these are based upon the wisdom of life. Emotional thinking is what comes naturally to the young who, naturally, have not yet accumulated wisdom from life.


    I've learned from an early age that life has no guarantees. I now do not have noble aspirations for myself, I've had that kind of wind blown out me, so I've given up aspirations. Things happen, that we have no control over, both in childhood and in adulthood alike - what happens is not reasonable, but it is done by, and it happens to, reasonable and unreasonable people alike - and these things can happen to anybody in any walk of life. Principles of freedom, non-coercion and balance (as you describe more fully) can just as easily escape, like water down a plug-hole, and if this happens, you realize that life and living do not come with any guarantees. Not even our ability to reason or our freedom to choose is guaranteed.

    Some of our ancestors, were emotional as well as reasoned human beings, their quests for accumulation of wisdom were not plain sailing either, they too had to overcome their own times, and defend their existence to others that didn't share the same viewpoint. We have very limited hindsight, and a very short life. I learn what I can learn. Who exists, who does not have cognitive blind spots and cognitive disonance? who is that perfect? who can understand the workings of the brain to guarantee otherwise?

    I stand on the shoulders of disappointed giants. Also, I haven't noticed anything avant-guarde about today's principles of freedom or of social psychology.

    tactics of strawman and red herrings are not going to divert me so stop trying to


    I actually did not know what was meant by "tactics of strawman", so I looked it up. I read about the meaning of "straw man" in the context of informal fallacy, which opened another 'huge' area of learning that I have not personally studied. Thank you for explaining that you were using extreme examples. (You are a stoic on the internet, how can I possibly and intentionally divert you!)
  18. Posted by: aHuman on 7/29/2010 6:14 AM
    Gravatar
    @TDOM
    It is difficult to discuss such issues with clarity in a forum such as this.


    Well it was you who came in guns blazing with elaborate definitions of how we could interpret the word 'truth'. Now, with that sentence, we're back where we started, with no coherent, intelligible definition of the word truth. So why exactly did we start this discussion?
  19. Posted by: TDOM on 7/30/2010 3:44 AM
    Gravatar
    @aHuman

    "So why exactly did we start this discussion?"


    I guess even a statement such as that is really clear. My statement was intended to convey the difficulty of discussing such a topic with clarity in just a few words. It was not meant to imply it couldn't be done or that we weren't having a valuable, worthwhile discussion. It was just to say that many of the world's greatest philosophers have written volumes on the topic and even they don't readily agree on a single definition. I have developed a multilevel definition that works for me and was willing to share it and defend it. In the process, I believe I have clarified and strengthened my definition even if it may require further clarification and perhaps some revision. My definition remains incomplete, but thanks to our discussion, it is better and more clear than it was previously. This is the entire reason that I comment on blogs and write one of my own. I look at life as a process that consists primarily of teaching and learning. One should never stop doing either.

    TDOM
  20. Posted by: TDOM on 7/30/2010 3:46 AM
    Gravatar
    Oops. That first sentence should read "I guess even a statement such as that is really not clear."

    TDOM

Post your comment




(this will save your form settings for the next time you comment)

Please add 1 and 8 and type the answer here:

The umbrella in particular is remembered as the symbol of the nineteenth century’s disturbing obsession with individualism. In Bellamy’s utopia, umbrellas have been replaced with retractable canopies so that everyone is protected from the rain equally.
“In the nineteenth century,” explains a character, “when it rained, the people of Boston put up three hundred thousand umbrellas over as many heads, and in the twentieth century they put up one umbrella over all the heads.”