Nevertheless, a cynical reading is not the only option — Leontiskos
Trying to make it invalidate the claim or the approach is more psychologizing than philosophy. — Leontiskos
However the OP outlined a non-cynical option: option 1. In this case (with no opposition and malice) the frame is quite optimistic. — Benj96
Now for the high stakes:
1). Those who choose option one catapult me into fame and recognition/acknowledgement - as the word of my proof spreads from person to person.
2). Those who choose option two are none the wiser, and unsure of what is going on ( "?" )
3). Those who choose option three: are inherently my antagonists - and must silence/eradicate the truth by any means necessary to protect their own agenda/self-interest/narrative. Meaning I will likely be assassinated/martyred based on your collective choices.
...
In this way I believe notable historical figures in not just scripture but also politics wielded mass psychology to empower themselves... — Benj96
2). Ones hand is forced - ie the decision is inescapable — Benj96
Just think necessity. Necessity forecloses on (practical) choice, which is the species of choice I think you're referring to. And necessity imposes ultimatums every day for everyone all the time. — tim wood
Ones hand is forced — Benj96
They then offer you atrinaryquarternary choice — Benj96
Ignore the word — Benj96
Ignoring was option (2). The OP already accounts for it. — Leontiskos
1). "Spread the word" that I am the fundamental truth (God). In doing so you a). Educate/teach (as true knowledge is based on the truth) and b) Are ethical - as telling the truth/being honest is as virtue that supports the greater good. In doing so you remove ignorance from those you tell - empowering them with knowledge while acting honestly/truly.
2). Ignore the word - in this case you remain ignorant and at the whim of manipulation/mis-direction/ the agenda of others. Disempowered, confused and vulnerable to being misled.
3). Keep the truth entirely to yourself. In this case you can only speak/communicate untruths/lies promoting delusion, ignorance and misdirection for others. This disempowers others by keeping knowledge away from them. And is unethical (dishonest and disabling) in self service. — Benj96
4) Deny the word. — T Clark
Yes, I do think this is a fourth option. One can understand the message and spend time studying the word, but nonetheless work hard to deny its worth To deny from knowledge might be a more useful action than to ignore from ignorance. Just as some Bible scholars are atheists who consider the Bible to be largely an immoral book. Perhaps you have presented a false trichotomy? — Tom Storm
I thought your third one was keep it to yourself? — Tom Storm
Ignore the word - in this case you remain ignorant and at the whim of manipulation/mis-direction/ the agenda of others. Disempowered, confused and vulnerable to being misled. — Benj96
It is. And by trying to keep the truth to yourself alone whilst another actively shares it (the originator) then by default you're opposed to them spreading it as throught their action it is less ajd less in your sole posession. — Benj96
In addition to my other comments, this to me does not follow. How would you demonstrate that ignoring the word leads to any particular outcome? Why wouldn't it lead to happiness and satisfaction? Hence ignorance is bliss? — Tom Storm
What version of truth are you describing where there is no possibility for it to be misused by bad faith actors? — Tom Storm
because you beleive the truth to have bad consequences for humanity — Tom Storm
Well ought you be the sole/exclusive decider of whether the truth has bad consequences for society? Surely that's highly autocratic. As any democracy is based on many people being allowed — Benj96
I do not see how ignorance and knowledge are the same. — Tom Storm
If you are certain it is harmful you may think this is vital work — Tom Storm
But in this scenario have you ruled out others also taking a position against the content of the word? — Tom Storm
Accepting that principle, it follows that no one should take it upon themselves to decide for everyone that it ought to be spread. — Janus
Then you shall have to draw your line with care. And care to note I referred to practical choice. As to action, there is no ultimate. Excepting perhaps gravity, under the influence of which I'm obliged fall, I don't have to do anything, although perhaps being subject to persuasion.An ultimatum forces a decision, not an external act. Here there is the very large difference between choice and coercion. — Leontiskos
But if the case is that you're ignorant, your "certainties" are falsely placed correct? Someone who opts for choice 2 (ignorance) can still exert what they "think" is true and ethical. That doesn't mean their actions are well rationalised. Intentions are not enough alone. — Benj96
Consider someone declares they are God and that this statement is the absolute/fundamental truth or "the word". They then offer you a trinary choice: — Benj96
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.