Truth:What is ultimate truth?Can we understand truth?Why do we kill people over truth

[LightSun]

Truth:What is ultimate truth? Can we understand truth? Why do we kill people over truth?



"Our minds thus grow in spots ; and like grease spots, the spots spread. But they spread a little as possible : we keep unaltered as much of our old knowledge, as many as our old prejudices and beliefs, as we can. We patch and tinker more than we renew. The novelty soaks in ; it stains the ancient mass ; but it is also tinged by what it absorbs." William James

"There are very few human beings who receive the truth, complete and staggering, by instant illumination. Most of them acquire it fragments by fragment, on a small scale, by successive developments, cell by cell like a laboring mosaic." Anais Nin

 

[Coriolis]

We tend to kill people over subjective truths, failing to understand or to accept their inherent subjectivity.

 

[FemMecha]

Sometimes I think truth is sitting still in the quiet and letting go of all assumptions, and entering a state of simply being.

Sometimes it seems like theories and ideas are exactly what blinds humans to reality.

 

[deathwarmedup]

Sometimes it seems like theories and ideas are exactly what blinds humans to reality.

I think our mode of consciousness blinds us to reality and our propensity towards ideas and theories and cultures are a by-product of that. I think our mode of consciousness is determined in large part (but not exclusively) by our evolutionary niche. Aside from why we kill people over truth, I'm interested in why we construct and adhere to cultures, which is arguably a sort of reframing of the question. Why are cultures so powerful and so necessary?

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

I'm interested in why we construct and adhere to cultures, which is arguably a sort of reframing of the question. Why are cultures so powerful and so necessary?

A healthy use of intuition to answer questions like these are also powerful and necessary.

Cultures are the social glue in which we use to survive. As an aside, I find it interesting that "Diversity" is celebrated except when diversity is practiced to its inevitable end.

I bet there is a language and culture that the people of Personality Type forums like TypologyCentral also adhere to which seems strange to an outsider.

 

[deathwarmedup]

Cultures are the social glue in which we use to survive.

I think that's unlikely to be an exhaustive explanation. Cultural differences can range the gamut from minor differences in how different groups within one animal species perform a simple task or behaviour to various belief systems among humans. The former could be completely arbitrary, practical solutions by isolated animal kin groups that are continued through mimicry, while the latter can provide psychological grounding in the face of perceived chaos. Then there's everything in between. I think their necessity is largely exaggerated and their power lies in their almost exclusive appeal to the the emotional mind rather than the rational mind.

I bet there is a language and culture that the people of Personality Type forums like TypologyCentral also adhere to which seems strange to an outsider.

I'm sure there is but I'm largely oblivious to it.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

I think that's unlikely to be an exhaustive explanation. Cultural differences can range the gamut from minor differences in how different groups within one animal species perform a simple task or behaviour to various belief systems among humans. The former could be completely arbitrary, practical solutions by isolated animal kin groups that are continued through mimicry, while the latter can provide psychological grounding in the face of perceived chaos. Then there's everything in between. I think their necessity is largely exaggerated and their power lies in their almost exclusive appeal to the the emotional mind rather than the rational mind.

I think most of your expansion of my concise statement regarding culture is fairly intuitive, which was my point to begin with. Even toddlers figure out the basics of play/socializing.

Why are you communicating in English instead of a language of your own invention? Would you say it's because you have an emotional attachment to the English language, or that in order to communicate your thoughts effectively it would be rational to communicate in the language others speak? A little of both?

 

[jamain]

I find this topic very interesting. I've been involved in a similar discussion on another forum. You're coming at it from a slightly different angle. The other discussion I've been involved in is about finding and confirming truth. Yours looks at whether we can understand it. I don't have much time right now so I'm going to cheat a bit and copy my response from the other discussion I've been involved in.



I find it is near impossible to know conclusively that one has the truth. It is impossible to find sources of information that are completely free of biases. The fact that there is bias does not mean that something is not true, but it does complicate the process.

I often find myself questioning whether I'm buying into information as the truth because it validates what I prefer to believe. (although many things I believe likely to be true, aren't necessarily what I prefer to believe) The truth is not determined by any of the following...

*what is popular and widely accepted as truth
*what makes us comfortable
*what we prefer to believe

Being fully aware of the tendency of many to accept things as truth based on the above criteria, does not guarantee that one can arrive at the truth. Is it even possible for us to know that we absolutely have the truth? I'm not so sure that we can ever without a doubt know that we have it. Trying to arrive at the truth can send one into endless thought loops. At least it does for me. Eventually I go with what seems most likely to be the truth, but I'm often looking back over my shoulder wondering if I missed something.

Sharing a link to an article that I thought was interesting. Philosophy News | What is Truth?

I think another question we have to ask ourselses is do we really want the truth? Do we love the truth enough to accept that it may not tell us what we want it to?

Truth is so obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that, unless we love the truth, we cannot know it.
Blaise Pascal

 

[deathwarmedup]

I think most of your expansion of my concise statement regarding culture is fairly intuitive, which was my point to begin with. Even toddlers figure out the basics of play/socializing.

It wasn't an expansion on your point. A paleolithic woman didn't braid her hair to survive anymore than my father wore flares in the 70s to survive. Conversely, incest taboos are cultural survival mechanisms that are unnecessary to social cohesion.

Why are you communicating in English instead of a language of your own invention? Would you say it's because you have an emotional attachment to the English language, or that in order to communicate your thoughts effectively it would be rational to communicate in the language others speak? A little of both?

Neither. My parents didn't give me any option. Why did Kamikaze pilots perform a ritual ceremony before their final flight? Why didn't they just get in their cockpits and go, when it was supposedly such a cost-effective method of war?

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

It wasn't an expansion on your point. A paleolithic woman didn't braid her hair to survive anymore than my father wore flares in the 70s to survive.

Ah, I think you're missing the forest for the trees. (How would anyone know if paleolithic woman braided their hair or not?) How sure are you that hairstyles don't have a utilitarian purpose as well as aesthetic choices, tribal markers, etc? I'm assuming your father wore flares in the 70s because that was the fashion at the time. Maybe he liked the flares? Maybe he did it to pick up chicks? Maybe there is a social influence to it? In that case, avoidance social ostracization is a valid reason. You're a smart fella, I'm sure you won't need me to spell out our evolutionary repulsion to being ostracized by the tribe, and how that influences our survival.

A lot of this stuff is subconscious.

Conversely, incest taboos are cultural survival mechanisms that are unnecessary to social cohesion.

Sounds progressive.

Neither. My parents didn't give me any option.

Why did Kamikaze pilots perform a ritual ceremony before their final flight? Why didn't they just get in their cockpits and go, when it was supposedly such a cost-effective method of war?

I don't know. Why did they?

 

[deathwarmedup]

Ah, I think you're missing the forest for the trees.

I think you're offering the kind of "just-so" explanation that is so common (and tiresome) in evo-psych.

How sure are you that hairstyles don't have a utilitarian purpose as well as aesthetic choices, tribal markers, etc? I'm assuming your father wore flares in the 70s because that was the fashion at the time. Maybe he liked the flares? Maybe he did it to pick up chicks? Maybe there is a social influence to it? In that case, avoidance social ostracization is a valid reason. I think you're a smart fella, I'm sure you won't need me to spell out our evolutionary repulsion to being ostracized by the tribe, and how that influences our survival.

I haven't said it wasn't, I said that culture as a survival mechanism wasn't an exhaustive explanation. You've just given examples to demonstrate this. The fact that such tribal markers were arranged aesthetically is significant: we can see that culture is not constrained by utility; it is involved in meaning, in value, in self-awareness, in the things of art.

We've all got our styles but I usually haven't time to check vids.

I don't know. Why did they?

Because it was a part of the emotionally-embedded culture that made the coldly rational option possible; cultures almost exclusively appeal to the emotional mind rather than the rational mind, hence their power.

 

[á´…eparted]

We tend to kill people over subjective truths, failing to understand or to accept their inherent subjectivity.

This. And it seems as time goes on people clutch this so much to the point where they will actively undermine and obsecure objective truth as well to achieve that end. I.e. climate change.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

I think you're offering the kind of "just-so" explanation that is so common (and tiresome) in evo-psych.

This sounds like the civilized discussion's version of "That's racist". Not everything needs to be deconstructed least of all that which is subconscious, like "culture" (broadly speaking). Culture happens. On Mars, culture would happen.

I haven't said it wasn't, I said it wasn't an exhaustive one. You have just demonstrated this. The fact that such tribal markers were arranged aesthetically is significant: we can see that culture is not constrained by utility; it is involved in meaning, in value, in self-awareness, in the things of art.

Of course it wasn't. I tried to be concise in which I said the details are fairly intuitive (to anyone who isn't autistic or unsocialized), and the answer to the question as to why cultures are necessary could be intuited if you're paying attention to your environment.

We've all got our styles but I usually haven't time to check vids.

A cursory look at a Fresh Prince video will give you insights into (sub)culture and its instinctive nature.

Because it was a part of the emotionally-embedded culture that made the coldly rational option possible; cultures almost exclusively appeal to the emotional mind rather than the rational mind, hence their power.

Gotcha. The word you're looking for is “Bushido.”

Do you think emotions are a bad thing?

 

[rav3n]

What is truth and how large a big picture must it include to be defined as the ultimate truth?

That's why I love science since it's premised on theories which means that if proven wrong, the theories can and should be amended.

Decades ago, science used to believe that there was only one mating dominant male per pride of lions. In actuality, it can be one male or a coalition of males. Then they believed that the coalition of males were always brothers. This too proved inaccurate since sometimes nomad lions attach to other nomads, to create coalitions.

At some time, they believed that only the dominant lion was allowed to mate. That's also inaccurate. More often than not, the other coalition males also mate with the females where in the odd pride, the dominant male will be more pushy and enforce first pick. Sometimes the females mate with more than one coalition male, to ensure that her litter bears more than one pride lion's DNA for better protection of the cubs. They were also mistaken about male lions always killing the cubs of other lions, particularly with pride takeovers. While this does occur more often, sometimes, if the females are strong enough, particularly in numbers, and the new lions relatively young, they won't necessarily kill the cubs of their predecessors. Sometimes a large pride of females won't allow nomads to take over their pride, in order to protect their cubs.

There are all these anomalies of which each is a small truth within what was observable by the biologists at the time. But as a species, lions don't all behave in identical fashion so there's no ultimate truth about their behaviours.

 

[Dreamer]

Truth:What is ultimate truth? Can we understand truth? Why do we kill people over truth?



"Our minds thus grow in spots ; and like grease spots, the spots spread. But they spread a little as possible : we keep unaltered as much of our old knowledge, as many as our old prejudices and beliefs, as we can. We patch and tinker more than we renew. The novelty soaks in ; it stains the ancient mass ; but it is also tinged by what it absorbs." William James

"There are very few human beings who receive the truth, complete and staggering, by instant illumination. Most of them acquire it fragments by fragment, on a small scale, by successive developments, cell by cell like a laboring mosaic." Anais Nin

I would suggest, our efforts are better spent asking what value those “truths” hold for us, and why those “truths” must be valid and contain a level of certainty within us, rather than analyzing truth itself.

What truth actually is, objective truth that is, I don’t believe we will ever fully know, or recognize it if we were to see it with our own eyes as we're all imbued with various levels of subjective bias. That bias then, and being able to accept it, or not, is where man can find himself askew from objective reality and must contend with the reality of “falsely” existing. Which, if you ask me, is perfectly fine, to be “falsely” existing as we’re really all just communicating and navigating the world and each other through perception anyways.

Eh, that’s actually a fairly decent summary of my world perspective at least...now where is that “world view” thread?? I can just copy and paste this there too...

Oh, and forgot to add (before my mind veers TOO far off course) simply, those that kill or harm others over those “truths” are those that have not come to an innner peace with the reality I’ve described above.

 

[LucieCat]

Because of bias, I don't think the human mind can ever truly see all of reality in a completely objective sense. And I think some truths are beyond the capabilities of our minds to comprehend. For instance, I don't think we can ever grasp the true nature of any spiritual force in the universe. But then again, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to.

Also, in my mind, people kill each other over their different ways of observing the world simply because they cannot comprehend how the others see reality. Or something like that. That's another issue too complex and nuanced to be generalized and completely understood.

 

[Atomic Fiend]

There is no Ultimate Truth. That suggests there is one truth that is in someway of ultimate importance. Truths don't work in that fashion. There are truths that hold more meaning or value for some than others and on an individual level that can be an Ultimate Truth, but that entirely depends on the individual. By that definition you can even make a paradoxical statement that my Ultimate Truth is there is no Ultimate truth, but even then it's a bit of a reach because I'm operating under the assumption that Ultimate Truth would be universal and not a personal one.

 

[deathwarmedup]

Why do we kill people over truth?

Because our "truths" are often in a conflict of interests with other's "truths", e.g. divided allegiances within a sovereign state.

Because of the self-serving nature of a status quo: a racist ideology may confer advantages on a privileged minority.

Because rival "truths" threaten our sense of identity, e.g. competing cosmologies.

Because the security of conformity exerts a strong pull on many.

Because of the psychological power of attachments, highlighted in Buddhism, and the fear of the emotional void created when they are broken.

Because rival "truths" are sometimes highlighted as convenient labels for rival groups in underlying disputes, such as resource competitions.

Because of our toxic susceptibility to ideas.

 

[Qlip]

People don't kill for Truth, People feel better when they pretend they're killing for Truth/God/Ideals rather than for food and oil and resources. Especially when it's hard to justify violence because there's enough to distribute equitably.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

There is no Ultimate Truth. That suggests there is one truth that is in someway of ultimate importance. Truths don't work in that fashion. There are truths that hold more meaning or value for some than others and on an individual level that can be an Ultimate Truth, but that entirely depends on the individual. By that definition you can even make a paradoxical statement that my Ultimate Truth is there is no Ultimate truth, but even then it's a bit of a reach because I'm operating under the assumption that Ultimate Truth would be universal and not a personal one.

I'm operating under the assumption that there is an Ultimate Truth and you're not, correct?

If you claim there is no Ultimate Truth and that everyone operates under their Truth autonomously, would you accept (although, disagree) my Truth that there is an Ultimate Truth:

There are truths that hold more meaning or value for some than others and on an individual level that can be an Ultimate Truth, but that entirely depends on the individual.

So, you'd agree that my Truth that there is an Ultimate Truth is just as valid as your Truth that there is no Ultimate Truth.

Y or N?

In other words, you don't have to agree with me that there is an Ultimate Truth or agree with my Ultimate Truth, but you do agree that our Truth is just as valid, and has a right to exist as yours does.