I think truth is an equiprimordial value along with happiness. Truth doesn't necessarily make us happy, that much is self-evident. But yet we seek truth anyway. We find it important, perhaps as important, as happiness. I don't think there's anything higher than truth that can justify its value. We value it in itself.

We value it in itself. — Brian

Why? What is this other value in truth? What, apart from the survival advantage that truth brings, makes truth valuable?

We've seen, perhaps needs no mention, that we often sacrifice the truth for happiness. We do like the occasional white lie - about our looks, our weight, our social position, etc.

On the other hand, there are some who pursue truth regardless of whether it brings joy or sorrow. One thing worth mentioning here is that knowledge, which presupposes truth, seems to have value in and of itself. It makes us happy to learn and understand even if what we learn is a sad truth.

So, occasionaly we find ourselves divided between truth and happiness, forced to choose one over the other.

For those who choose happiness there's no problem because happiness has value in and of itself.

But for those who choose truth it's a problem because as far as I can see, truth only has value to the extent our happiness or survival depends on it.

My question is:

1. Is truth only as valuable to the extent it helps us achieve happiness? — TheMadFool

No. Especially since you seem to have characterized "happiness" so as to make it incompatible with pain and suffering.

2. If yes, why do we search so hard for the truth, given that some truths are painful? — TheMadFool

I suggest that most of us do not search very hard for the truth, except in special cases. Nevertheless, it seems most of us find truth most of the time, and most of us value truth most of the time -- whether or not we acknowledge that we do.

3. If no, what is this other value of truth? — TheMadFool

Many philosophers, including Rorty and Davidson, seem to take it for granted that our powers of perception and perceptual judgment have been honed by natural selection to produce "mostly true" beliefs.

Along those lines, it's not necessarily happiness -- whatever that's supposed to be -- but rather selective fitness, that's secured by our grasp of the truth. The same explanation may be called upon to account for some of our blind spots, including the sort of tendency you've indicated, to neglect, deny, or rationalize painful facts of life.

We might say along Bacon's lines, that the accumulation of empirical knowledge increases our capacity for action, or in other words that the pursuit of truth in empirical investigation is a means to expand our range of action, which we might construe as power or freedom -- including the power or freedom to oppress, pollute, destroy, or annihilate by ever-novel means on ever-larger scales.

Or we might value truth as something like an end in itself, not merely for the pleasure, utility, or satisfaction it brings us, but like an idol, ideal, or guiding principle. We might characterize truthfulness as an aesthetic, moral, or spiritual value, for instance in keeping with a conception of ourselves as participants in the harmony of nature, perhaps along Stoic lines, or as illustrated by the fairy tale at the end of Plato's Gorgias.

Especially since you seem to have characterized "happiness" so as to make it incompatible with pain and suffering. — Cabbage Farmer

I think you've hit upon something there. I believe happiness is the contrary of pain & suffering. Is there an overlap area between happiness and pain & suffering, as your comment seems to suggest? Can we be in pain AND happy? I'd like to know what you mean here.

Nevertheless, it seems most of us find truth most of the time, and most of us value truth most of the time -- whether or not we acknowledge that we do. — Cabbage Farmer

The only value in truth that I see is in its use for survival. We can see that in our willingness to believe falsehoods if they make us happy. Truth is lower in priority than happiness.

So, I find your claim that people value truth in and of itself unbelievable.

honed by natural selection to produce "mostly true" beliefs. — Cabbage Farmer

That's what I mean. Truth is only valuable to the extent that it can be used to make us happy or help us survive. The moment this link is lost, people prefer lies over truths.

However, there are truths that make us unhappy. The truth about our ugliness, our poverty, our meaningless existence, etc. are pain-inducing. — TheMadFool

I like Carl Rogers' take on this .. he says "all facts are friendly" , which I believe, was his way of saying that one's life is in one's own hands. And "truths" are really just facts that can only exist in a very narrow context whereas one's life is potentially unbounded, and not hemmed in by simple and contrived black and white questions.

1. Is truth only as valuable to the extent it helps us achieve happiness?

2. If yes, why do we search so hard for the truth, given that some truths are painful?

3. If no, what is this other value of truth? — TheMadFool

Here are my tentative answers.

1. Yes, by definition. If we understand "happiness" to symbolize the goal, then it is valuable to the degree that it aids our movement toward this goal.

2. We can be described as the collision of many drives, instincts, desires. Let's say that I am hungry and see an opportunity to steal food. I fear the consequence of this theft and also the loss of self-love that would come with understanding myself as a thief. So I reason with myself. I can make excuses for this theft (decide that property itself is theft, for instance) or perhaps comfort my hunger by reflecting on the virtue indicated by my restraint. The rationalizing "ego" can be understood as the process of harmonizing these drives. Clearly we are future oriented beings. We endure suffering now by means of an admixture of anticipatory pleasure. I show up for work after a night of insomnia. My long term goal requires this discomfort. The relative strength of drives is revealed this way.

This sets the scene for my main point. We get narcissistic pleasure from possessing the truth and understanding ourselves as scientists or metaphysicians. So we make sacrifices. If I sacrifice my belief in personal immortality or cosmic justice to the pleasure I take in being logical, I only prove how serious and scientifically virtuous I must indeed be. Or maybe I accept that I am ugly by thinking how intelligent and realistic I must be to do so. Or it allows me to get the girls nevertheless by identifying the problem and adjusting for it (working out, better hair, achievement of charism via humor or political earnestness or success in the "real" world [money]).

3. See #2.

And "truths" are really just facts that can only exist in a very narrow context whereas one's life is potentially unbounded, and not hemmed in by simple and contrived black and white questions — Jake Tarragon

Should our lives be guided by truth or should our lives guide the truth?

It appears that most believe it's the former but, as you imply, tge former is based on the latter.

So, you see no value in truth beyond its use as a means for happiness and survival?

If that's the case then philosophy too must simply be a means to survival. Yet, many here (I'm guessing) think that philosophy is a higher goal - the quest for knowledge for its own sake.

Should our lives be guided by truth or should our lives guide the truth? — TheMadFool

The latter!

To know the truth that a gun can kill or a stone can hurt translates into survival - life and happiness instead of death or pain. It then seems that truth = happiness and survival. Perhaps, therein lies the value of truth. — TheMadFool

I see truth as a mental scaffolding that allows me to redraw the world the way it really is. The greater the truth I can find, the more my conception of the world is fine tuned. It is not designed to make me happy or sad, and while on the crudest level is does absolutely ensure survival, on the next level up from that, it is about competitive advantage.

Truth is the degree by which one's hypotheses and theories about the world actually represent the way the world is. This is why, as the OP states, the improved survival of an organism correlates with the degree of truth it has about the world and would be something natural selection would promote. The more accurate your perceptions of the world, the better you are able to survive in it - to the point of becoming a species that manipulates it's environment unlike any other species before.

The latter! — Jake Tarragon

Makes biological sense. Our survival depends on knowing the truth. So, truth has no value in itself.

does absolutely ensure survival, on the next level up from that, it is about competitive advantage. — MikeL

An advantage for survival. It amounts to the same thing. What's surprising is that I expected someone to argue in favor of the intrinsic worth of truth. I guess it has none.

(Y)

So, you see no value in truth beyond its use as a means for happiness and survival?

If that's the case then philosophy too must simply be a means to survival. Yet, many here (I'm guessing) think that philosophy is a higher goal - the quest for knowledge for its own sake. — TheMadFool

Roughly speaking, yes. But I wouldn't stress survival. Survival itself is only itself a tool in the hand of the "the project." Suicide may also be a tool in the hand of the "the project." For instance, a terminal patient may go out on his own terms and a soldier may sacrifice his life for an ideal that it not about knowing things but rather about being a certain kind of person. Knowing is not the only or even central expression of virtue, in other words.

Happiness in the deep sense (as I see it) accompanies the continuation of this project. What is this project? It's your "higher goal." But philosophy (among other things) is the determination and modification of this higher goal. Whom shall I be? What is noble?

As I see it, the association of truth-seeking with nobility is contingent rather than necessary. Of course most philosophers understand the pursuit of knowledge as ennobling. "All men by nature desire to know." I'd never deny man's curiosity, but does this not hint at fixing the essence of nobility? What if all men by nature desire to be noble in a generalized sense? And philosophy is a practice for those who have determined this essence of nobility in terms of the pursuit of knowledge? But what if this pursuit of knowledge leads to an awareness of the contingency of fixing the essence this way?

In other words, I'm suggesting that the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake can subvert itself or put itself in question. The first part of Nietzsche's BG&E is a famous example.

I find it more plausible that man is time or that man is the project. This project includes its own anguished or joyful specification. I am or was always already thrown into the process of figuring out or creating why. To pursue universal knowledge is one possibility among others.

I see some sort of progression here...

Non-life -> Life -> Survival -> Happiness -> Truth

Life evolved from non-life. It was simply a survival game - competition for food, mates, etc. This is still true for ''lower'' animals.

Then came civilization - food surplus, shelter and free time gave birth to art, philosophy, science. Mere survival was no longer enough - we needed happiness.

As civilization evolved, happiness wasn't the only game in town. Truth (or nobility, you said) became a pursuit in itself. Happiness relegated to a lower position.

Am I making sense?

Sure, you're making sense. But my main point was the gap between Truth and The Noble. As I see it, philosophers are probably exactly the kind of people who will identity to two. They are noble inasmuch as they participate in the sacred pursuit of Truth. This pursuit of Truth is the highest and universal self, perhaps. But why not beauty? Does a composer pursue Truth?

Or what about war? Does a great warrior pursue truth? Does a beautiful young women (or man) learning how to dress to maximize her beauty pursue truth? And yet I'd include that in the self-sculpture I have in mind. So maybe:

Non-life -> Life -> Free time / affluence -> generalized self-sculpture including Truth, Beauty, Power, Wealth, etc.

I guess I was speaking in a restricted sense. Philosophy, truth, aren't the only things worth pursuing. Yet, the truth is, beauty, power, wealth seem to be on a lower rung on the value ladder. May be it's just me. What do you think? To me, truth seems to be fundamentally connected to the nature of the universe itself. Thus, truth seems to be the ultimate goal of human endeavor...achieving the proverbial "oneness" with ultimate reality.

1. Is truth only as valuable to the extent it helps us achieve happiness?

2. If yes, why do we search so hard for the truth, given that some truths are painful?

3. If no, what is this other value of truth? — TheMadFool

1. No.
2. See 1 above.
3. It seems that you're really asking a question about human nature here. Perhaps truth is human nature? But what does truth even mean? Is truth a correspondence between subject and object or is this correspondence not derived from something more basic? What would this more basic truth look like? The Ancients had a concept of Aletheia. It has been translated as truth, uncoverdness, disclosure, unconcealment, etc. If human nature was truth, it would not be so as a correspondence truth but as truth as this notion of Aletheia or disclosure.

Yet, there are some who value truth above happiness. For example, pessimism, which is based on the fact that suffering exceeds happiness, values truth above happiness. Pessimists are unhappy but this is grounded in truths about our world. — TheMadFool

If we interpret truth as Aletheia, the pessimist is disclosing the world to be in a certain way. The pessimist is not necessarily staying true to the facts and the optimist in not necessarily closing their eyes to the reality. They are both disclosing the world in different ways according to how they find themselves to be disposed in the facticity of their situation. They are both in the truth, not because they value truth, but because they are, as human, essentially this disclosing activity. Truth.

what does truth even mean? — bloodninja

You asked the right question. For me, truth is about propositions. Of course, the propositions themselves aren't the actual stuff the propositions are about. I think they're more like reflections and so long as there's a logical consistency between propositions (the reflections) and the objects they're about, we can assume we're dealing with the some form of truth.

They are both in the truth, not because they value truth, but because they are, as human, essentially this disclosing activity. — bloodninja

What else is there to disclose but the truth? Why do something if you don't value it?

What else is there to disclose but the truth? — TheMadFool

I think the idea behind Aletheia is that in unconcealing or disclosing being, you are simultaneously concealing or covering up being. An example might be different epochs of thought. E.g. the scientific revolution disclosed the world in a fundamentally different way simultaneously covering up or making impossible the way it was understood before. Therefore the disclosure changed the object (the world) that scientists could have knowledge of. The mystical world became concealed by the unconcealed scientific world governed by laws. I don't know if this is making any sense... It's hard to describe the ontology...

Why do something if you don't value it? — TheMadFool

I don't think people do things because they value them. For the most part people just do what one does because it's what one does. It sounds odd to say that people value conformity, it's more true that they/we are conformity. What does it even mean to say we value something?

et, the truth is, beauty, power, wealth seem to be on a lower rung on the value ladder. May be it's just me. What do you think? To me, truth seems to be fundamentally connected to the nature of the universe itself. Thus, truth seems to be the ultimate goal of human endeavor...achieving the proverbial "oneness" with ultimate reality. — TheMadFool

I like the phrase "value ladder." I think these ladders vary quite a bit from person to person. Of course I have an itch for the truth and this oneness with things, which is why I bother to think or notice this variance of ladders from person to person.

On the other hand, I can interpret my own interpretation of reality as a poetic act. Maybe I am painting or finishing reality. Perhaps reality is incomplete. We are thrown into the process of meaning-making, truth-finding, and/or poesis. Part of this meaning making would be understanding or peticicizing ourselves as being thrown into this meaning-making. As I find the "truth" about myself, I alter this truth about myself. All that I previously knew is recontextualized by every new bit of knowledge. As I try to fix my own nature in terms of motives, the discovery or postulation of new motive reframes this quest to fix my nature. Because why do I want to fix or discover my nature? What is my motivation for finding my motivation? We enter the vortex.

I think the idea behind Aletheia is that in unconcealing or disclosing being, you are simultaneously concealing or covering up being. — bloodninja

We could see it that way I suppose. Truth, I think, has many faces and stages. The mystical and the scientific are different faces of truth. There are many other such perspectives - each as valid as the other.

Then there are stages - science and, I presume, other forms of knowledge, evolves with each step along the way being a more refined and accurate description of reality.

I don't think people do things because they value them. For the most part people just do what one does because it's what one does. — bloodninja

You see no background reasoning in human activity? It's all instinct to you. Just as a dog loves bones, without any background reasoning, humans love to paint, think, etc? We simply do what we do? What of morality then? Our sense of the good and bad sometimes tells us to go against our instincts. We tell ourselves not to steal, not to kill, not to exploit, etc. Ethics can't be explained from your perspective.

Anyway, my conclusion is that truth has value beyond its use for mere survival.

Yes, the perfect observer doesn't exist. We give and we take - it's an exchange, always.

I totally agree. I think Truth, however we define it, is integral to our being. I think there are always background meaningful self interpretations going on that guide our activity. However I would shy away from calling this 'reasoning' even though we are rational animals. I think our everyday activity is more of a background flow than a foreground deliberation, though there is occasionally this too. You could call what I'm getting at a value I suppose. For example, being a father guides your daily behaviour only if this is how you understand yourself, and only if being a father matters to you. Fatherhood in this sense would be a value, not an arbitrary value, but an existential value. I am extremely dubious about the possibity of rationally choosing values.

Ethics can't be explained from your perspective. — TheMadFool

I'm not too sure what you mean? I'm not really talking about our animal instincts as such, but about conformism in general. I have been thinking lately that our feelings of morality are simply an expression of this conformity. In other words that we are deeply structured by norms and feel uncomfortable when anybody deviates from norms. Do you not think so?

I am extremely dubious about the possibity of rationally choosing values. — bloodninja

Am I correct to say that your basing yourself on nature of some kind? A generality that unites and guides us, our thoughts and actions? Value isn't something we choose through reasoning but something that is specified by our nature?

If yes, what role does reason play in our lives? Is it simply a tool to achieve and acquire values determined by our nature?

To say the least, I don't think the link between nature and reason is one-directional. Both inform each other - they interact and information travels both ways, so to speak.

I have been thinking lately that our feelings of morality are simply an expression of this conformity. In other words that we are deeply structured by norms and feel uncomfortable when anybody deviates from norms. Do you not think so? — bloodninja

Searching for a solid foundation for morality has turned up nothing. Norms, you say, are what morality is about. But, these norms must have a rational basis, at least for the philosopher. The average joe doesn't care or doesn't have the time or resources to evaluate the norms taught to him. Yes, but the occasional question does arise, as when faced with moral dilemmas of some kind. How would we answer these reasoned questions about the worthiness of our norms?

Does a composer pursue Truth? Or what about war? Does a great warrior pursue truth? Does a beautiful young women (or man) learning how to dress to maximize her beauty pursue truth? — t0m

Yes, yes and yes.
Music is a type of truth in which there is a mathematical order between the notes played. Get it wrong and it is discordant.
A warriors truth may be the truth about his inner fortitude or the pursuit of the truth as to whether he is the greatest warrior ever. To this end he will pit himself against strong adversaries.
A woman may be looking for the truth about her beauty. If she does everything right, does she possess it? Or she may be looking to reveal the truth about her beauty to the beau.

These are all very subjective of course.

Hmm, I don't think 'nature' would be the right word to use. I'm not opposing reason and nature. What I'm opposing reason to is that before we stop to rationally reflect about values we always already find ourselves in a world that matters to us. By that I mean certain things confront us as significant, while we find ourselves completely indifferent to other things (indifference is still a way of mattering). My view is that this mattering is basic.

what role does reason play in our lives? Is it simply a tool to achieve and acquire values determined by our nature? — TheMadFool

Reason is very important in a lot of different ways, but I don't think it's as fundamental to human nature as the mattering of simply being drawn into the significance of things.

these norms must have a rational basis... How would we answer these reasoned questions about the worthiness of our norms? — TheMadFool

Good question! I think our norms are completely groundless! As far as I'm concerned deontology and utilitarianism are artificial creations. Aristotelian Virtue Ethics gets it right because it describes the norms as norms. I don't think Aristotle would go so far to say that norms are groundless, but he is almost there I think. Phronesis (practical wisdom, the crown virtue), for example, seems to me to be groundless, ultimately.

1. Is truth only as valuable to the extent it helps us achieve happiness? — TheMadFool

Yes. Truth is supposed to benefit people in some form or way.

2. If yes, why do we search so hard for the truth, given that some truths are painful? — TheMadFool

So that we can change. It is our duty to change in accordance with knowledge.

Yes, yes and yes.
Music is a type of truth in which there is a mathematical order between the notes played. Get it wrong and it is discordant.
A warriors truth may be the truth about his inner fortitude or the pursuit of the truth as to whether he is the greatest warrior ever. To this end he will pit himself against strong adversaries.
A woman may be looking for the truth about her beauty. If she does everything right, does she possess it? Or she may be looking to reveal the truth about her beauty to the beau. — MikeL

Sure, we can stretch the word "truth" to include these things, but certainly these are different from the philosophical notion of truth.

But you do make an interesting point. The warrior may be trying to answer a question. Am I brave enough to face death ? Brave enough to kill? Or, as you say, am I an effective warrior? But surely chance plays a role in who survives a battle, so perhaps bravery is fundamental.

But how does the warrior answer this question? Not with words. He stands in risk.

Also I think the woman wants to be beautiful. So her asking whether she is can be understood as a decision about moving onto to other projects or not.

So perhaps self-sculputre involves truth in the sense that we have to believe that we are successfully being that which we want to be. The philosopher might ask himself whether he's asking good questions or providing good answer, whether he is being a true/successful philosopher or not. But I think he still understands this as a form of beauty or nobility. He enjoys not only the process of philosophy but the image of himself as a philosopher, as a variant of the hero.

We can see that in our willingness to believe falsehoods if they make us happy. Truth is lower in priority than happiness. — TheMadFool

If you believed Truth would lead to a greater form of happiness than the happiness derived from falsehoods; You would be seeking Truth out for your betterment.
If one is equating Truth with pain and suffering then yes one's survival instinct would probably lead one elsewhere. But, even if there was pain and suffering with Truth, one need not necessarily associate pain and suffering with the loss of Happiness and thus the loss of Truth. We just put it all together. Its the human experience?

To explain the base instinct as to why the average Joe would pick a Truth rather than a falsehood is simple; and basically is the survival instinct, for why would Ignorance be greater than the Truth in any scenario, for with the truth one may understand the scenario and choose to take action or even inaction for his betterment.

Maybe, yes with the pursuit of Truth comes pain and suffering. Even still, this means that 'one's betterment' be it musical prowess or hunting skillz is more important than one's happiness.

Maybe context of the scenario is the medium for the Truth to travel through, said like that Truth is in a lot of things, in everything if run through every scenario 'with Truth' or virtuously.

1. Is truth only as valuable to the extent it helps us achieve happiness?

2. If yes, why do we search so hard for the truth, given that some truths are painful?

3. If no, what is this other value of truth? — TheMadFool

1. No

3. One's betterment

Afterthoughts:
If one were to automatically equate Truth with the loss of happiness, which is not easily done, one then would pursue a life of ignorance thinking that the less they know the happier they are and whose to say they aren't? Paradox of choice? It may not be readily apparent to all people that Truth would lead to one's betterment and that would be better than Happiness, or that Truth leads to more Happiness. People can disagree on the rankings of Happiness and Truth, or lack foresight. Something like that.

Yes. Truth is supposed to benefit people in some form or way. — MountainDwarf

I think I understand now. It's not about happiness or survivial per se. We don't bend truth (we can't) to achieve happiness. We change ourselves (our attitudes, expectations, thoughts, actions, etc.) in accordance with the truth. I think the question ''what's the value of truth?'' is central to any philosophy of life - a lot of suffering has its roots in being unrealistic (ignoring the truth). Contrary to what I thought, us manipulating the truth to achieve happiness, the truth should guide us - shaping our worldview into one that's realistic and practical.

So that we can change. It is our duty to change in accordance with knowledge — MountainDwarf

Exactly.

You would be seeking Truth out for your betterment.
If one is equating Truth with pain and suffering then yes one's survival instinct would probably lead one elsewhere. But, even if there was pain and suffering with Truth, one need not necessarily associate pain and suffering with the loss of Happiness and thus the loss of Truth. We just put it all together. Its the human experience? — Frank Barroso

I think this is important. The association between truth and suffering is an, for lack of a better word, illusion. The truth should shape our worldview. It's when we fail to do this that truth leads to suffering. I don't know the origins of this obvious disconnect between us, humans, and reality. Evolution, if it's true, should've synchronized us to the facts of reality. Yet, here we are, the vast majority of us, with unrealistic expectations that, inevitably, lead to a lot of suffering.

One interesting fact that has relevance is that the definition of realistic is changing with every tick of the clock. Science has made so much progress - once lethal diseases are cured with just a week of antibiotics, we live in air-conditioned houses in the middle of deserts, etc. Might it be that humans can achieve and fulfill what is only now, ''unrealistic'' expectations? Can we change the truth????

I think you've hit upon something there. I believe happiness is the contrary of pain & suffering. Is there an overlap area between happiness and pain & suffering, as your comment seems to suggest? Can we be in pain AND happy? I'd like to know what you mean here. — TheMadFool

The dichotomy of pleasure and pain is slippery. The coordination of pleasure and pain with desire and aversion is complex. The relation of affect to right action is problematic.

Many of us learn to take pleasure in things we had found painful, or find ourselves pained by things we had found pleasurable. Thresholds of pleasure and pain change over time. One may be pained in one respect and pleased in another by the same state of affairs.

Often in order to pursue a course of action deemed healthy, profitable, or otherwise desirable, one must overcome an aversion to pains associated with the action. No pain, no gain. In some happy cases, we take pleasure doing what's right, or following through the course we've chosen, and this pleasure offsets whatever pains belong to the course. Even if we don't take pleasure in the task, or not enough to offset its pains, we might hold fast in anticipation of results the prospect of which we find desirable and compelling.

Accordingly, that one suffers pain does not entail that one be in an unpleasant or undesirable state.

What is it we call "happiness"? Is it an enduring state of fitness and satisfaction, robust enough to persist through a wide range of shifting circumstances, unperturbed by volatility in the balance of pleasures and pains? Or is it a feeble, mercurial sensation of pleasure and satisfaction, collapsing at the slightest adverse change in circumstances?

I expect one like you, with such interest in fitness and survival, to agree that pain's no obstacle to the happiest, that the capacity to delay gratification and to overcome pains and aversions for the sake of future results is a capacity that belongs to happy people. It seems to be, if we assess happiness in the long run, not in one instantaneous fragment of a life.

To be happy in the long run, it's not enough to master your own impulses, your desires and aversions and reactions to pleasure and pain. You need good information, you need right views, for instance about health, about nutrition and exercise. Discipline isn't much help if you're wrong about ends and means. I suppose in some such cases, the enkratic is worse off than the akratic, turns out unhappier and farther from sophrosyne.

The only value in truth that I see is in its use for survival. We can see that in our willingness to believe falsehoods if they make us happy. Truth is lower in priority than happiness.

So, I find your claim that people value truth in and of itself unbelievable. — TheMadFool

I've suggested there are many cases in which a fit and happy person will willingly take on pains, without thereby reducing his fitness or happiness; and in some such cases, the sacrifice will tend to increase the agent's happiness over time.

You suggest there are many cases in which a person will willingly believe falsehood for the sake of happiness. But I say in the first place, this person does not willingly believe falsehood.

He does not, so to speak, believe both that his claim is true and that his claim is false. He does not believe both "I'm pretty" and "It's not true that I'm pretty" -- he doesn't "believe" such contradictory statements in the same way at the same time. He is deluded and self-deceiving, but he avoids self-contradiction.

He continues to value truth. He insists that his interpretation of reality is true and that conflicting interpretations are false. He happens to be wrong, and we give a psychological account of how he came to go wrong in this way. Our psychological account takes truth for granted. So does the judgment "He's wrong". So does the sad story he tells himself and the rest of us. So does his change of heart, if he comes round to the facts.

To say that there are various ways in which we are deluded and deceived and fall into error, is not to say that we cease to "value truth" on such occasions, even if deceiver and deceived are the same. I would say such cases of self-deception are not "willing", but rather inadvertent. Lying to oneself and lying to another are two different kinds of lying.


In the second place, if we'd fall prey to self-deception too often or in the wrong contexts, we'd be inept at living in the world. You've agreed to this point, but seem perhaps to underestimate its relevance to your views on happiness and survival.

In the third place, many of us who value truth as an ideal expect that self-deception comes at a cost, something like a cognitive dissonance or psychic strain that increases in intensity and ill-effect the longer and more widespread the habit of self-deception is allowed to fester. We say the self-deceiver is more likely to be unhappy in the long run. His misconceptions will lead him to wrong action and undesirable results. People around him will notice his delusion and count him a fool who can't tell fact from flattery. The strain of evading the truth will take its toll.

He's like an addict, confusing the instant gratification of self-deception with the enduring satisfaction of sincerity and truth. He's mistaken about the pain of facing the facts, and makes obstacles of opportunities, like one who avoids stretching tight muscles because of his aversion to the pain or irritation it seems initially to cause. Far better to delay gratification, overcome aversion, transform pain to pleasure and fitness, promote happiness by cultivating the habit of right action.

So we prefer to aim at truth, not only when it crashes through to grind down false hope, wishful thinking, and vain denial, but even when more care and self-control are required to find the mark, even in every case that comes to our attention.

That's what I mean. Truth is only valuable to the extent that it can be used to make us happy or help us survive. The moment this link is lost, people prefer lies over truths. — TheMadFool

If people judge what makes them happy only according to what feels good from one moment to the next, they increase their own unhappiness in the long run. Truth recommends itself in the fullness of time. Even with respect to survival: The more truth, the better prepared for what comes, all else equal.

But what's this link you draw between action, happiness, and survival? It seems to me that many of us rarely act for the sake of survival. Given easy enough circumstances survival comes quite naturally to most of us and we tend to act from other motives most of the time, until we're overcome by old age, sickness, or another disruptive fate.