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
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
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 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
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
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).I agree with your reasoning but there's a simple solution to it. That your belief includes believing that other beliefs are invalid. — FlaccidDoor
You also didn't mention a blip of it in this thread so forgive my ignorance. — FlaccidDoor
it's possible to drill for magma energy, and use that energy to avoid the impending catastrophe of our existence. — counterpunch
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 stand corrected. I misread your post, and sorry that I seem to have put you into a foul mood. — FlaccidDoor
:fire: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.)
or falsified by empirical evidence.the basis for invalidating a belief for you is that the belief must be self contradictory. — FlaccidDoor
A belief seems not to require evidence, but evidence nevertheless helps.Additionally and also as you said, this belief has a weakness in that it needs evidence in order for it to function.
It isn't? You have an example of something that contradicts neither itself nor empirical evidence that is nevertheless invalid?I believe that is a reason why you struggle now. You believe that a non-self-contradicting perspective is a valid one.
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.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.
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?Are truths useful? — FlaccidDoor
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
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
It isn't? You have an example of something that contradicts neither itself nor empirical evidence that is nevertheless invalid? — noAxioms
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
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).So again, IF a falsehood exists that overwhelms the truth in this domain, then it would be better than the truth? — FlaccidDoor
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
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.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
Have you? I didn't really post to much of my actual beliefs, and I detected no criticism.Let me start by clarifying that I don't intend to criticize your beliefs in particular at all.
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.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.
Umm.... What specific belief? Does this specific belief (perhaps by said unreasonable person) fail to meet my criteria?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.
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
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
It depends on the purpose of Truth. Why you are pursuing it. — SteveMinjares
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.