I think that you are speaking of the horrors of life, which is a little different from finding truth, philosophically, or is it? — Jack Cummins

I think it is, but far from a useful one ontologically speaking. It's also not a philosophically proven truth but I think those horrors of life describes reality correctly at least at a single time and place.

That seems like an interesting book. But I suspect the perceived "death of truth" is just a realization that there is no such thing as unbiased information, especially in journalism. In the past when news were presented mostly on paper, big news outlets were able to fact check their information to ensure some standards against their own biases. They had time since the most recent news were still a day late considering printing and distribution time. However today, those same outlets have to compete for viewer retention online, with news presented at the same hour with explosive headlines being rewarded the most. Since established news outlets were forced to lower their quality of service, other outlets, including anyone that can google, can compete for the "most trustworthy news source" position.

Why is believing in falsehoods not the equivalent of interpreting it as truths? If you believe it is real, convince yourself it is real, then to that person it is as if that is a truth.
— FlaccidDoor
Truth seems to not be something relative to a person or a belief, so despite the fact that I hold what I would label as 'beliefs', I'm not so naive to assert that those beliefs correspond to truth. — noAxioms

Sorry I was unclear. What I meant here is that it would just seem to that person that it is a truth, not that it actually is. A person's ability to believe as if something is true is different from that actually being true.

You use the word 'know' like 'believe' here. One can believe something (be certain about it even, which is the lying to which I refer), but true knowledge is seemingly out of reach because there is not enough data. The existence of alternate valid interpretations of things means there is no way to know which interpretation (if any) is the true one. No, such lying is due not to knowing something else is true, but to realizing that something else could be true. — noAxioms

I agree with your reasoning but there's a simple solution to it. That your belief includes believing that other beliefs are invalid. I think many in this forum treat this as taboo, dogmatism, zeal and so on and so we look down upon it, but while unreasonable, it is logically valid.

I mentioned harnessing magma heat energy using drilling technology. I've mentioned it often enough, and we've spoken often enough - you should know that. If you'd read my post before replying, you'd know that - but you never do. It's not the first time, I've read your response - and it's clear you haven't read the post you're responding to. — counterpunch

I'm sorry to hear that but I only joined this forum recently, and while we have talked before I don't think we talked too much about renewable energy. You might've mentioned geothermal energy (which is a good one, admittedly) before but that was far from the main topic which was about political divides. You also didn't mention a blip of it in this thread so forgive my ignorance.

I'm sorry for assuming your position and I'm not confident enough in my knowledge to talk about geothermal energy. I hope you understand my position of argument though, because wind and solar are still a very popular source for green energy, and while you might not believe in it many people do.

So my question is: Are truths useful? Aren't there falsehoods that are more useful? Is the truths that you pursue(d), if you pursue(d) them, useful? If they aren't useful, do you practice philosophy knowing that finding the truth is useless? Is usefulness the correct criteria to judge if we should pursue truth? — FlaccidDoor

This depends on the area of enquiry. In rational investigations, I'd say that people want to pursue truth or matters of fact, all the while keeping in mind that capital "t" Truth, may well be beyond our capacities as biological creatures.

The issue becomes difficult dealing with "ordinary life". There you need to consider context, situations, different persons and so on. In this domain, sometimes we need to lie, or be polite, or say half-truths and so on.

As with truth, so with usefulness. In enquiry, truth is often useful. In ordinary life, this depends on the person. I think it makes sense to have usefulness in mind, while keeping in mind that what's useful depends on your own interests. But any obsession with Truth, shouldn't arise, I don't think, we are likely to be wrong, as has been the case throughout history.

I agree with your reasoning but there's a simple solution to it. That your belief includes believing that other beliefs are invalid. — FlaccidDoor

Doesn't follow. Say I believe in eternalism (block universe, time is a dimension) which is opposed to presentism (that there is a preferred moment in time). I have no reason to believe that the presentist stance is invalid. It is only invalid if it is self inconsistent or inconsistent with actual measurements somewhere, which it isn't (although I might choose to argue otherwise).
Maybe your point is that I have no grounds for my eternalist belief because I have no evidence that alternate views are unsound, but all beliefs are of that nature.

I do hold some beliefs (including some that I'm fairly certain are falsehoods), but I as far as I can manage, I don't claim these beliefs to be true knowledge since there seems to be no access to such knowledge.

You also didn't mention a blip of it in this thread so forgive my ignorance. — FlaccidDoor

No.

it's possible to drill for magma energy, and use that energy to avoid the impending catastrophe of our existence. — counterpunch

I stand corrected. I misread your post, and sorry that I seem to have put you into a foul mood.

Do I understand correctly if I say that truth is reality as an individual understands it, and Truth is reality as it exists?

As with truth, so with usefulness. In enquiry, truth is often useful. In ordinary life, this depends on the person. I think it makes sense to have usefulness in mind, while keeping in mind that what's useful depends on your own interests. But any obsession with Truth, shouldn't arise, I don't think, we are likely to be wrong, as has been the case throughout history. — Manuel

I agree, truth is often useful. I don't understand you fully in the last part though. What do you mean by an obsession of Truth? Do you refer to liars like drug addicts?

As you've said, the basis for invalidating a belief for you is that the belief must be self contradictory. This is a reasonable view because it allows room for the opposing believer to offer their own reasoning to why they are valid. Additionally and also as you said, this belief in validity has a weakness in that it needs evidence in order for it to function. IE, there needs to be evidence that the belief is self contradicting to invalidate said belief. I believe that is a reason why you struggle now. You believe that a non-self-contradicting perspective is a valid one, even if it contradicts the one that you believe now.

However a belief can change the very definition of what is valid or invalid for the individual. A belief that invalidates all other beliefs inherently allows for a logically sound environment in which that person can reject all other beliefs without lying to themselves, regardless of whether that belief is based on truth or falsehoods.

I stand corrected. I misread your post, and sorry that I seem to have put you into a foul mood. — FlaccidDoor

No worries, I'm not in a foul mood, and for what it's worth, I see now that I didn't actually mention drilling for magma until the very last sentence. I've talked about it so much - what I believe is the solution to climate change, and key to a long and prosperous future for our species, that I thought I had mentioned it - and/or that I didn't need to explain what I meant by limitless clean energy. That said, I think if you were honest you'd acknowledge a tendency to take to the keyboard before having done the reading. I'm just telling you, it's very obvious to other people when you do that.

As the light makes both itself and the darkness plain, so truth is the standard both of itself and of the false. — Spinoza (EIIp43, schol.)

:fire:

No, the "motive" for pursuing truth is truth itself. One can use truth as a criterion, or priority, for judging between alternative paths; false paths are discarded, then less untrue (or more true) paths are considered, leaving their comparative usefulnesses, or adequacies for the task or situation at hand, as the deciding factor. In the long run, however, adaptivity, not only usefulness, is what matters – whether or not taking this useful path or that one engenders truth-seeking habits with positive feedbacks (i.e. intellectual virtues).

the basis for invalidating a belief for you is that the belief must be self contradictory. — FlaccidDoor

or falsified by empirical evidence.

Additionally and also as you said, this belief has a weakness in that it needs evidence in order for it to function.

A belief seems not to require evidence, but evidence nevertheless helps.

I believe that is a reason why you struggle now. You believe that a non-self-contradicting perspective is a valid one.

It isn't? You have an example of something that contradicts neither itself nor empirical evidence that is nevertheless invalid?

A belief that invalidates all other beliefs inherently allows for a logically sound environment in which that person can reject all other beliefs without lying to themselves, regardless of whether that belief is based on truth or falsehoods.

I don't see how any belief can invalidate a different belief. I spelled out what does invalidate it, and alternate beliefs are not on the list.

Are truths useful? — FlaccidDoor

Maybe I should've kept things simple and replied with: Are rigid straight rulers useful? Are consistent precision clocks or scales useful? Are fair dice useful? ... Each helps us better align our beliefs (i.e. predictions, expectations) with reality, don't they?

That's good to hear, because I actually enjoy the conversations that I have with you quite a bit. There are still worries I have with geothermal energy but I have no research to ground it in.

I think if you were honest you'd acknowledge a tendency to take to the keyboard before having done the reading. I'm just telling you, it's very obvious to other people when you do that. — counterpunch

I try not to do so as much as I can, because I know the insult it causes to the receiver. I can honestly say that I do, but I have limited time and I think I wasn't in the most pristine mental condition when I sent my replies the first time. I was fairly sure this morning that you didn't imply any hints to geothermal but I was proven wrong pretty handedly. I'm afraid I'm an imperfect being that forced himself to engage in debate with other thinkers when he knew he didn't have the capacity that met theirs. I can only ask that you have the patience with this imbecile and take the time to clear any misunderstandings that I have.

You're smart enough. That's not the problem. It's your impatience. You've got ideas, and leap at the keys to get them down. I know because I was the same way - until I disciplined myself to read the whole thing before I started writing. The ideas are still there after - and probably better formed for the effort. I don't want any bad feeling between us. I enjoy your posts, and would like to be able to discuss them with you.

Always! Now weather or not to you in said snapshot of circumstance.. is the question that many attempt to define such definitions upon/

Additionally and also as you said, this belief has a weakness in that it needs evidence in order for it to function.
A belief seems not to require evidence, but evidence nevertheless helps. — noAxioms

Sorry, I lack clarification here. I meant belief as in your belief of validity. Function as in, to invalidate another belief by using some evidence provided.

It isn't? You have an example of something that contradicts neither itself nor empirical evidence that is nevertheless invalid? — noAxioms

Let me start by clarifying that I don't intend to criticize your beliefs in particular at all. My example was to describe a scenario in which a person lives in a logically righteous world because they do not have the same strenuous validation process as you might. They can invalidate other beliefs because validation requires the belief to be his own. All other beliefs are invalid inherently according to this belief. I suspect that the reason you say this specific belief is invalid is because you are working on the belief that validation requires non-self-contradiction and supporting empirical evidence. While many people here will agree with you, including me, the unreasonable individual, as in the example given above, believes otherwise.

Maybe I should've kept things simple and replied with: Are rigid straight rulers useful? Are consistent precision clocks or scales useful? Are fair dice useful? ... Each helps us better align our beliefs (i.e. predictions, expectations) with reality, don't they? — 180 Proof

I like the metaphor you use here a lot. A ruler, clock and scale is a lot like how we do our best to describe reality as it is, in that we both need to create the measurement system, the tool for the measurement, and a method in which to use the tool correctly. Risk is also a very important part of daily life, although I never gambled, so it seems like dies are fair game as well.

My main concern is if there aren't falsities that are more useful than these tools in their respective domains. For example, in a shipping factory, we can use rulers to measure the dimensions of a package every single time, but it can be inefficient. So then a company might just say, "guess with your eyes instead" and it can be useful enough. Individual estimation of the package by eye is not as accurate as a ruler, but it is accurate enough for reality to be more useful than the ruler.

I also like your previous post's analogy of truth to light. I resonate with this and the previous one heavily. You mention adaptivity, but isn't that just usefulness in a differing situations? So again, IF a falsehood exists that overwhelms the truth in this domain, then it would be better than the truth?

I'm glad to hear that. Don't worry about me. It's just that currently, between school and work my free time is severely limited. I tried to reply as soon as I can last time and I'm sorry it came off as me not appreciating what you had to say. I didn't mean that at the slightest. I also didn't check myself well after you pointed me out and came off as crass. I can understand your frustrations against me.

If you have anything you want me to clarify about my position, don't hesitate. I'll be looking forward to it.

Cool. I'll keep my replies brief.

"What is the truth, but a lie [claim] agreed upon." ~F.N.

So again, IF a falsehood exists that overwhelms the truth in this domain, then it would be better than the truth? — FlaccidDoor

Only in (that instance of) that domain. In terms of 'possible worlds semantics' (Kripke), a 'truth-claim' obtains in one or more possible worlds, and in a possible world where a 'truth-claim' does not obtain that 'claim' is a falsehood (fiction or lie). Furthermore, there are possible worlds where claims are useful or not useful, and dependent or not dependent on being truthful or false (e.g. myths, ideologies, folk psychologies/medicines, romances, fairytales, games, etc).

I agree, truth is often useful. I don't understand you fully in the last part though. What do you mean by an obsession of Truth? Do you refer to liars like drug addicts? — FlaccidDoor

That was poorly phrased. All I meant was that most people throughout history have been wrong in there beliefs. They thought the there were many gods and through these, that's how the world works. If it rains it's because the gods are pleased, if it's dry the gods are angry, etc.

As we've progressed and left that type of thinking behind, we began having theories or sorts. Most of them have not been true, as applied to how the world works. We likely are in a similar boat in that, someday we might discover our theories are incomplete and that out beliefs are mistaken in some big manner.

Obsession with Truth meaning the final word on the subject, the absolute end all of questioning because we have the answer. There's always more to find out and discover.

Sorry, I lack clarification here. I meant belief as in your belief of validity. Function as in, to invalidate another belief by using some evidence provided. — FlaccidDoor

OK, I see what you're saying. Some used to believe that light moved at a fixed speed through a medium, just as does sound. That was eventually shown to be false by experiment, so the theory was no longer valid, and thus any belief in it was not valid, at least not without some serious modifications.

It isn't? You have an example of something that contradicts neither itself nor empirical evidence that is nevertheless invalid?
— noAxioms

Let me start by clarifying that I don't intend to criticize your beliefs in particular at all.

Have you? I didn't really post to much of my actual beliefs, and I detected no criticism.

My example was to describe a scenario in which a person lives in a logically righteous world because they do not have the same strenuous validation process as you might. They can invalidate other beliefs because validation requires the belief to be his own. All other beliefs are invalid inherently according to this belief.

I didn't understand those last lines. How is the other person's belief (presumably in contradiction with the first person's) invalidated? What does "validation requires the belief to be his own" mean? I just don't see how my own beliefs can have any effect at all on the validity of somebody else's differing beliefs. I might believe they are wrong, but that belief doesn't invalidate theirs.

What do you think it means for a statement to be valid? I gave my definition above, but you seem to have a non-standard definition going on here.

I suspect that the reason you say this specific belief is invalid is because you are working on the belief that validation requires non-self-contradiction and supporting empirical evidence. While many people here will agree with you, including me, the unreasonable individual, as in the example given above, believes otherwise.

Umm.... What specific belief? Does this specific belief (perhaps by said unreasonable person) fail to meet my criteria?

Sorry, but maybe if I figured out what those phrases meant above, I'd figure out what you're trying to get at here.

In the long run, however, adaptivity, not only usefulness, is what matters – whether or not taking this useful path or that one engenders truth-seeking habits with positive feedbacks (i.e. intellectual virtues). — 180 Proof

Is this similar to a neo-pragmatism? I'm unclear what you mean by adaptivity - do you mean where it has usefulness in a range of situations?

By adaptivity I mean activity which "engenders truth-seeking habits with positive feedbacks (i.e. intellectual virtues)".

There it was hiding in plain sight. Sorry.

:ok:

I don't think the fact that you lie to yourself through difficult times means the truth is no longer needed. I don't think truth necessitates any utility either. For the former I'd say that, in a dispassionate sense, you lack the fortitude required to move forward in light of the meager offerings of truth - though only meager to your perspective. With respects to the former, I think that truth has great utility although commonly not in relation to personal desires or motives save for rare circumstances.

So my question is: Are truths useful? Aren't there falsehoods that are more useful? Is the truths that you pursue(d), if you pursue(d) them, useful? If they aren't useful, do you practice philosophy knowing that finding the truth is useless? Is usefulness the correct criteria to judge if we should pursue truth? — FlaccidDoor

Philosophy can be useful and useless at the same time. It depends on the purpose of Truth. Why you are pursuing it.

If philosophy is to pursue a universal morality that everyone can agree on. Than yes philosophy is useless because a type of universal moral conduct does not exist.

If philosophy is to teach you the basics of moral principles so you can expand on it based on your own personal journey. Than yes it is useful because it teaches you about analytical thinking and awareness about yourself.

Acknowledging philosophy as a way to understand things like a sort of strategy is the best way to see it. Philosophy is not the solution is just one of many possible ways to the solution.

It depends on the purpose of Truth. Why you are pursuing it. — SteveMinjares

What about the notion that truth is worth pursuing for its own sake? If you are not a philosophical pragmatist does truth have to have a function?