Is the truth really of value?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Is the truth really of value? » Is the truth really of value?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Is the truth really of value?

james1951
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 49

Posted 06/13/09 - 04:58 AM:	#21
Dangerous Curves wrote: Well it definitely is a utilitarian principle, and I agree that to take small personal inconveniences to add up to greater happiness for everyone is definitely worth doing. I especially factor the minimize suffering maxim into considering whether or not to become a vegan, or at least try it. It does seem unnecessary to force an animal to die for my convenience, when I could get the vitamins, minerals, and proteins from other sources, without suffering. Overall, it would be an increase in happiness for all parties. Does a lion care if the zebra dies for his convenience? Can a lion not eat berries like a bear? And what about fish are they included in your particular vegan diet? It is only humans who consider such issues. This where the human animal needs and spiritual needs meet at loggerheads with each other. Are we at the top of the food chain or do we take ourselves out of the food chain. Do you know there are those who think plant cry when they are hurt? What the heck do they eat. What is the real rational for being a vegetarian? Is meat bad for your health or are are we concerned about the rights of other animals? And what about fetuses and eggs?

Fili
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 09, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 5

Posted 06/13/09 - 08:59 AM:	#22
Back in the day people used to believe that the earth was the center of the universe but since then Copernicus used scientific induction and calculations to determine that the earth in fact revolves around the sun proving that the geocentric theory was false. But just because heliocentricity is the truth doesn't mean that it is a better theory than geocentricity. We hold truth to be this great value but why is it held to such a high standered? We can't control it. It constantly brings us sadness and strife. So then why is the quality of being true a value. What really makes truth better than fallacy or reality better than illusion? Tell my why something must be true for me to accept it. (I believe) Truth exists. Fallacy does not. As human beings, however, the truth does not always further our goals. Sure, scientific knowledge has helped tremendously to further our goals in almost every arena. But what if someone could conclusively disprove the existence of any deity, or could show that there is no soul or no afterlife. Would those truths help people? I would suggest probably not. There are loads of good people who find in religion comfort, joy, motivation to work hard and be good, and transcendent meaning. Would it be worth depriving all of them of that just for the sake of truth? There is a flip-side to the question, however. One might argue that we should discard truth in exchange for a fallacious worldview that better fits with our goals and desires. One might also argue, however, that we might change who we are to better fit the truth. Suppose for a second that the universe is without meaning unless observed by a creature that imports meaning to it. That there is no god, no soul, no transcendence, no afterlife. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, this is truth. Many would find this truth extremely distasteful and counterproductive. But why should we find it to be so? Why is an all-loving all-powerful deity who watches over us any more pleasing to the intellect than predetermined meaninglessness? It is completely illogical from a sentience's perspective to prefer one view to other. Prefering pleasure to pain, love to hate, happiness to sadness, sweet to bitter, pretty to unattractive, something to nothing, are all illogical in themselves. (not talking about evolutionary rationals) They are all preprogrammed drives we are born with. They exist to control and direct our actions. So why should we not accept truth and say bugger off to these irrational drives that "dislike" that truth. In the end, I think one of our drives is a joy of understanding and knowledge. I think others are a need for meaning, and a need to be loved. Perhaps the relative strengths of these drives will determine how much we will sacrifice an accurate worldview for a pleasant one.

Dangerous Curves
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 10, 2009
Location: Indiana, US

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 31

Posted 06/13/09 - 10:32 AM:	#23
james1951 wrote: Does a lion care if the zebra dies for his convenience? Can a lion not eat berries like a bear? And what about fish are they included in your particular vegan diet? It is only humans who consider such issues. This where the human animal needs and spiritual needs meet at loggerheads with each other. Are we at the top of the food chain or do we take ourselves out of the food chain. Do you know there are those who think plant cry when they are hurt? What the heck do they eat. What is the real rational for being a vegetarian? Is meat bad for your health or are are we concerned about the rights of other animals? And what about fetuses and eggs? Humans are the only animal with the capacity to understand the depth of pain their actions can wreak upon other animals, so I would expect us to be the only ones to consider the issue. I wouldn't say animals have rights, and I might not even say people do, but it seems to me like if we acknowledge animal pain and have the ability to reduce pain and suffering for animals that feel it, why not? Or should we pretend that we are all on the same developmental level with animals? Certainly we are animals, but we are not mindless. Also, if plants do not have a nervous system then they can't feel pain. They also don't have tear ducts. These people should be ignored.
"She carries me through days of apathy. She washes over me. She saved my life in a manner of speaking when she gave me back the power to believe."

throng
Profester.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 12, 2008
Location: Downunder.

Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 803

Posted 06/13/09 - 12:22 PM:	#24
It's about honesty and trust and frankly I care little for the accuracy of information. E=mcc and any material is of a singular primary. So information is just singular bulldust and accurate to an extent, but the truth is honesty and trust. That is strange because how is one honest unless he trusts himself to be true? What is honesty but the expression of 'true self'? Anyway the truth is about honesty and trust not about partially accurate assumptions. I think.
I know that I don't know, so I don't know if I do.

james1951
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 49

Posted 06/13/09 - 12:57 PM:	#25
Dangerous Curves wrote: Humans are the only animal with the capacity to understand the depth of pain their actions can wreak upon other animals, so I would expect us to be the only ones to consider the issue. I wouldn't say animals have rights, and I might not even say people do, but it seems to me like if we acknowledge animal pain and have the ability to reduce pain and suffering for animals that feel it, why not? Or should we pretend that we are all on the same developmental level with animals? Certainly we are animals, but we are not mindless. Also, if plants do not have a nervous system then they can't feel pain. They also don't have tear ducts. These people should be ignored. I was focussing mainly on why vegans do not eat meat. I agree with your post though

james1951
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 49

Posted 06/13/09 - 01:01 PM:	#26
throng wrote: It's about honesty and trust and frankly I care little for the accuracy of information. E=mcc and any material is of a singular primary. So information is just singular bulldust and accurate to an extent, but the truth is honesty and trust. That is strange because how is one honest unless he trusts himself to be true? What is honesty but the expression of 'true self'? Anyway the truth is about honesty and trust not about partially accurate assumptions. I think. In the end you are quite right. We may not want to admit to the accuracy or inaccuracy of the assumptions we make to justify our actions.

Incision
Professor

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jan 04, 2008
Location: Utah

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 905

Posted 06/14/09 - 05:25 PM:	#27
james1951 wrote: But what is the true reason the terrorist is going to set off those bombs? Is it because his rights have been violated his family and country have been harmed and he wants to stop the offenders or get revenge for the harm they have done to him? Probably. It still makes sense for me to prefer something other than having true beliefs.

james1951
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 49

Posted 06/15/09 - 11:34 AM:

#28

Incision wrote:

Probably.

It still makes sense for me to prefer something other than having true beliefs.

The only thing other than true beliefs, are false beliefs. Do you really think false beliefs are preferable?

Some say ignorance is bliss , so maybe you are right in a way.

nousPLOTINU
The Flux

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 07, 2008
Location: Montreal

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 150

Posted 06/15/09 - 12:24 PM:

#29

Truth accompanies phenomenology in the same way time does.

Truth is a property of Humans and this is what makes it valuable. Personal Truth can describe an accepted state, be it , "true", "false", or "unknown".

The Truth of phenomenology corresponds to Honesty within human consciousness.

It is not that I think I know, it is that I know when I think.

james1951
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 49

Posted 06/16/09 - 08:52 AM:

#30

nousPLOTINU wrote:

Truth accompanies phenomenology in the same way time does.

Truth is a property of Humans and this is what makes it valuable. Personal Truth can describe an accepted state, be it , "true", "false", or "unknown".

The Truth of phenomenology corresponds to Honesty within human consciousness.

All we actually have is a perception of the truth based on our own personal reference point or perspective.

While me may or may not be in possession of the facts, we all have an interpretation of those facts, concerning the whys and wherefore irregardless of the validity of the fact.

We can be very honest and still be wrong according to the facts.

We can be dishonest and submit true facts with distorted reasoning which is what purportedly the serpent did in regard to god and adam.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.