plaguerat
New member
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2009
- Messages
- 195
- MBTI Type
- INTJ
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!
I can't handle the truth. So leave me in peace.
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.
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.
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.
Well in that case I chose the latter.
What good is truth if it fucks everything else up.
moral=truth plus kindness
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.
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
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.
Is it our moral obligations as humans to persue truth at any cost, or please the masses by effectively "lying"?
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.
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.
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
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.