Truth or Peace?

[plaguerat]

I can't handle the truth. So leave me in peace.

haha, its good that you realize that fact.

even though I'd rather have absolute truth, more power to ya!

 

[plaguerat]

I don't believe peace can really exist on a large scale. So, truth all the way.

Edit: In my personal life, also truth. The two are mutually exclusive. Someone could tell me a very harsh truth, but I find great peace in knowing.

that's an interesting philosophy. Nicely said, really. I quite agree.

 

[Edgar]

well yes. I meant more along the lines of a truth that has the potential to change the opinion of those who aren't as objective as others, mainly on a large-scale society level.

but yes, I think there's a positive and negative in everything ,no matter what. A balance of the two aspects could create peace, but I'm looking at it in an extreme sense. Like, what is better to persue in the world, ultimate truth and honesty or fudging the edges or even creating a cover-up in order to keep the masses at relative peace.

Much of a type question, I think. Interesting to see which type tends to answer in which direction.

Well in that case I chose the latter.

What good is truth if it fucks everything else up.

 

[thisGuy]

truth: established facts that are imposed upon an entity which have the effect of disturbing a calm state of mind.

peace implies a state of mind where the entity involved is at terms with it's surroundings and with itself and that the does not exhibit a contradictory school of thought.




peace through truth is the only way to achieve lasting truth.
the entity has to comes to terms with whatever the its existential conditions in order to have lasting peace.

 

[plaguerat]

truth: established facts that are imposed upon an entity which have the effect of disturbing a calm state of mind.

peace implies a state of mind where the entity involved is at terms with it's surroundings and with itself and that the does not exhibit a contradictory school of thought.




peace through truth is the only way to achieve lasting truth.
the entity has to comes to terms with whatever the its existential conditions in order to have lasting peace.

agreed. However, in a modern world, the effect of truth on the masses is another thing entirely. While the optimal product of truth is ultimate peace, many take it in and it negatively affects them; rather than viewing it as a helping tool, they percieve it as a crippling contradiction to an unquestionable world.

 

[plaguerat]

Well in that case I chose the latter.

What good is truth if it fucks everything else up.

To me truth is very closely related to an inner peace, therefore any sense of ignorance I may possess in fact does the opposite for my mind- it fucks things up. I guess I would rather be miserable and cynical than complacent and ignorant.

Heh, I know many others feel very differently though.

 

[nanook]

moral=truth plus kindness

 

[plaguerat]

moral=truth plus kindness

but maybe absolute truth cannot exist including percieved kindness

 

[Edgar]

To me truth is very closely related to an inner peace, therefore any sense of ignorance I may possess in fact does the opposite for my mind- it fucks things up. I guess I would rather be miserable and cynical than complacent and ignorant.

Heh, I know many others feel very differently though.

Well in a previous question you said what was better for the masses.

Just because something is good for you personally doesn't mean it's good for the masses.

 

[nanook]

but maybe absolute truth cannot exist including perceived kindness

kindness defines a course of action. as such it is subjective. but how it is perceived is very secondary. it is relevant to actions that are not even perceived at all. you could call it sensitivity

 

[plaguerat]

kindness defines a course of action. as such it is subjective. but how it is perceived is very secondary. it is relevant to actions that are not even perceived at all. you could call it sensitivity

on a personal level, I'm not a very sensitive person.

Society, however, seems to be quite the opposite. Is it our moral obligations as humans to persue truth at any cost, or please the masses by effectively "lying"?

 

[plaguerat]

Well in a previous question you said what was better for the masses.

Just because something is good for you personally doesn't mean it's good for the masses.

Which was the second part of the question.
A moral dilema: would you
A) go with your personal convictions, whatever they may be, for the benefit of humanity
or
B) do you go against what you believe is right (again, whatever it may be) for the sake of either peace or truth. (assuming the two exist at the moment opposite each other)

 

[nanook]

Is it our moral obligations as humans to persue truth at any cost, or please the masses by effectively "lying"?

the right understanding of "truth" is based on reality. you cannot pursue/persuade truth, unless you try to pursue/persuade reality. reductionist fixed theories are not the truth. the truth is, that misunderstandings are real and inevitable.

as for the idea, that truth can not be absolute/"there is no absolute truth". that would be a rather impossible/inapplicable statement, if "truth" were understood in the right way. however truth is not unreal, just because it is relative. and there is a structural order of relations, from primitive and often harsh but essential structure to sophisticated structure, with broad potential for both wealth, and error.

the right course of political action tries to be sensitive to relativity, translating relative madness (as made up by uninformed motivation) to relative truth (as seen by sober perception), while at the same time it tries to enable a rise in the order of relative truth, that is to say, an exchange of the current paradigm of truth to a higher (ie more differentiated*) truth, but only to a degree that is synchronized to the ever growing structural differentiation of practical 'possibilities' in the neighborhood or world.

*formulation for sake of simplicity

 

[thisGuy]

agreed. However, in a modern world, the effect of truth on the masses is another thing entirely. While the optimal product of truth is ultimate peace, many take it in and it negatively affects them; rather than viewing it as a helping tool, they percieve it as a crippling contradiction to an unquestionable world.

right. so the masses need to be prepared for the truth before turning on the light.

just like how, if we expect sudden light to flood a dark room with us in it, we will close our eye and then open them slowly so they become accustomed to increasing light intensity, educate the masses through cause and effect.

tell them about the truth, but not the truth itself
tell them how it will affect their lives
tell them how it will ruin the their good world
tell them that before you can have sex, you have to get naked OR that you have to get your feet wet if you want to cross the river
tell them how, after the ruination, the good order will be restored with much stronger and integral foundations
if they are ready, tell them the truth.

 

[Little Linguist]

Would you choose ultimate truth or peace in ignorance?

Say, in a position of power over many people, which would you stake in order to achieve the other?

Large scale societies and on a personal level, which would you uphold?

Truth over peace, if I had to choose. Often they are interconnected, however: People don't find peace until they know the truth.

 

[plaguerat]

Truth over peace, if I had to choose. Often they are interconnected, however: People don't find peace until they know the truth.

that is quite true. Unless they have found a "peace" of their own, in which case anyone else's percieved truth (actual or not) would ruin their state of mind.

IN my personal opinion though, I think the truth should be learned of at all costs, those who don't like it must either combat it with a truth of their own or get over it.

So really I guess its more of a question of how far you manipulate those with less information than you and to what extent the truth can go.

 

[plaguerat]

the right understanding of "truth" is based on reality. you cannot pursue/persuade truth, unless you try to pursue/persuade reality. reductionist fixed theories are not the truth. the truth is, that misunderstandings are real and inevitable.

as for the idea, that truth can not be absolute/"there is no absolute truth". that would be a rather impossible/inapplicable statement, if "truth" were understood in the right way. however truth is not unreal, just because it is relative. and there is a structural order of relations, from primitive and often harsh but essential structure to sophisticated structure, with broad potential for both wealth, and error.

the right course of political action tries to be sensitive to relativity, translating relative madness (as made up by uninformed motivation) to relative truth (as seen by sober perception), while at the same time it tries to enable a rise in the order of relative truth, that is to say, an exchange of the current paradigm of truth to a higher (ie more differentiated*) truth, but only to a degree that is synchronized to the ever growing structural differentiation of practical 'possibilities' in the neighborhood or world.

*formulation for sake of simplicity

hmm, you make an interesting argument. Truth is a very personal thing, and can literally be changed depending on a myriad of factors from simple point of view, education, and the like to philosophic and religious views.

A piece of information, however, can be attributed to "truth" at some points. The real question may not be whether or not truth exists in itself but instead how far you control the meaning of certain things with the "truth" label.

Or just how far you manioulate people or let them manioulate themselvs.

(I.e. Do you tell your dying mother who truly and honestly believes there's say, a cat sleeping next to her every night, that there really isn't? She may (this is all hypothetical) recieve great joy from such an occurance, and do you convince her that there isn't? Do you (morally, personally, or as humans in general) tell a child who's father haas just died that he raped and beat its mother constantly?)

Truth per se as a concept is highly debatable and, in many situations, not a stable variable. Pure information, however, is.

 

[plaguerat]

right. so the masses need to be prepared for the truth before turning on the light.

just like how, if we expect sudden light to flood a dark room with us in it, we will close our eye and then open them slowly so they become accustomed to increasing light intensity, educate the masses through cause and effect.

tell them about the truth, but not the truth itself
tell them how it will affect their lives
tell them how it will ruin the their good world
tell them that before you can have sex, you have to get naked OR that you have to get your feet wet if you want to cross the river
tell them how, after the ruination, the good order will be restored with much stronger and integral foundations
if they are ready, tell them the truth.

that is a very sensical solution. It would (and should) work for the masses.

On a personal level though, I think I would prefer all of the truth, even if it would hurt. i'd much rather not be decieved (by myself or others) about a particular instance or really anything at all. Heh, which may very well be why I fit the INTJ bill.

I laughed at the sex part. The sad thing is, I've heard that before, and they were serious.