Against Superfluous "Holy Lies"

[aussie_bloke]

@Impious

Where truth is sufficient, there is no need for “holy lies”. In relation to this one would do well to consider Paul’s monster lie. Paul made of faith an inescapable obligation- his spirit engraved in stone the words ‘TRUTH IS NEVER SUFFICIENT’. Subsequently, all kinds of “holy lies” came to be seen as necessary- one was in need of them at all times. Everything veracious was henceforth known as poison, evil- and it’s avatar, the man of knowledge, was condemned. There is little else as infernal for us thinkers.

PS. The lie of millennia which Nietzsche talks about in Ecce Homo includes the claim that decadence morality is necessary. Exposing the truth of this morality (as Nietzsche did) proves oneself a destiny, a force majeure- but it’s not the only way. Exposing the truth of any major component of said lie achieves the same result.

faint [probably would have been edited by Faust if I there were a reason to post it] :-& =D> ( ?)

[moresillystuff]

@F.W.Nietzsche

There are no facts, only interpretations.

Is that a fact?

[moresillystuff]

@F.W.Nietzsche

I want to know why your so sure about that.

Do you “believe” that the earth is flat? That was once consensual reality.
[/quote]
Will its ‘not being flat’ be swept away? And how can you be sure of this? Note

The thread starter is talking about the value of “untrue beliefs”. Yes anti-dogmatism. Dogma’s are just solidified errors. “Truths” are simply contingent fictions that hold sway at any given time. They are wholly contingent, and [size=150]will [/size]be swept away with, the next scientific discovery, new philosophical theories, what have you. It is nihilism. We are guided by errors.

[my emphasis]

How do you know this will happen?

Will your position be swept away by future scientific discoveries?