I am really trying to be genuine here. But you don’t make it easy. Even though I can see you are trying.
Truth is truth. If I value it because of what it is, because I understand it has value, then so be it. If that is confusing to you, well, I don’t know what to tell you. Maybe philosophy isn’t for you.
There is always a “why and for whom” behind every value, that goes without saying. Yet the fact something has reasons for being what it is, does not somehow refute the thing itself. Gold has value, for example, and people seek gold because they understand it has value. Do they need to know all of the reasons why it has value to them and to other people, does all of that NEED to factor into their seeking gold? No, it doesn’t. The fact they already understand it HAS VALUE is sufficient.
Of course there’s nothing wrong with knowing the reasons. I and you both already know the reasons why truth is valuable. So what’s the problem here?
I am not negatively valuing the species, I am pointing out a fact and inquiring into the further meaning (and consequences) of it. The fact at hand is that philosophers are very, very rare among humans. I think this is because most people do not seek truth for its own sake, they seek truth (reality) only when it personally benefits them or makes them feel good somehow. So they ignore truths that don’t affect them right away, and they especially ignore truths that result in discomfort or something inconvenient for themselves.
If you think the above description is incorrect, they say so. Explain why.
Why do you keep bringing up that other topic about good and bad? You asked if truth is good for people “as a rule”. That is the wrong question, at least from a VO perspective, and shows you did not understand what I was saying about good and bad.
Good and bad are hyper-specifics. They simply are what they are, for whatever reason they are that and this already always includes the sum total context involved in that. It depends on the being for whom good is good and bad is bad. From this further general cases can be derived, like “generally it is good for people to eat food”. Exceptions prove the rule, as you were alluding to. And truth is like good and bad in this case. It simply is what it is. Maybe that is why you keep returning to this? Yet you don’t seem to understand it.
Truth means reality. Whatever exists, including however and whyever it is what it is. It might help if you can accept that.
Does reality need a reason to value itself? Does a value itself need a reason to value itself? Yet A=A, value = value. If something IS a value then it IS TRUE that it IS a value. Again, everything has reasons. So what? You can talk about those reasons separately from talking about the thing itself. It’s like I am saying “gold has value” and all you keep doing is responding with “but WHY does gold have value?? Why do you value it personally to yourself??” That is missing the point. Maybe I don’t value it personally to myself, that doesn’t matter because I still understand that it has value. Maybe I have traumatic experiences of being beaten with gold bricks for some odd reason as a child, and how I don’t like to think about gold or be around gold, maybe I truly negatively value it, and yet I sitll understand that it has value.
There is such a thing as putting aside your own personal considerations, biases and subjective stuff in order to consider what is objectively factually true beyond yourself. Do you understand that? Or is everything ‘always about you’?
Truth is not always black and white, which is also to say that being truthful is not always black and white either. I already explained that people do value truth but typically only when they think it affects them personally somehow. Otherwise they tend to ignore it, or even de-value it if it might cause them some inconvenience. Do you not understand this? Do you not understand why this causes so many problems?
And people lie because it gives them some benefit, or prevents some discomfort or bad thing happening to them. Lying is different though because in order to lie you must already know that you are being dishonest, so you are aware of the truth but choosing to act counter to it or to conceal the truth from others. It is also possible to lie truthfully, i.e. to lie on one level of a truth but in the service of a greater truth. Or to betray one value because it maintains a greater value. Again, I am sure you already understand all of this stuff. Which is why I am confused why you keep acting like you don’t get it.
I really don’t understand your takes on religion or politics, but that is OK because it is outside the scope of this topic anyway.
Unless you want to go into details about how it’s relevant to the OP.
I find it confusing you do not understand this. Either you genuinely don’t get it, or you are pretending like you don’t get it. “You “understand that truth is valuable”—but valuable to whom or what?” --irrelevant to the issue at hand. You and I both know the reasons truth is valuable, why are you pretending otherwise? You and I both know to whom truth is valuable, why pretend otherwise?
I refuse to believe you don’t already know these things, because they are THAT basic. I think you are trying to bait me by acting ignorant, playing the innocent fool so I have to explain myself even further. Yet that is a waste of time. I am not going to sit here repetitively explaining stuff that we both already know.
Keep pretending like you don’t understand how truth is valuable. See where that gets you in life, or philosophy.
Radical skepticism really is a disease of the mind. After a certain point, so many years I guess, you just can’t help yourself but play the innocent fool, acting like you don’t know what you know. Cutting down your own seeking and searching mind because it gives you an excuse to uphold a certain threshold in the discussion, a threshold that you think gives you a degree of leverage over the issue and other person. Very tragic. Acting in that way has absolutely nothing to do with philosophy. And I am not going to entertain it for very much longer.
??
People pursue things that have value. Sometimes even if not to themselves personally. And philosophy (alethempeiria) is a special case even here. I understand this is very rare in the human species, clearly you are among the common masses who do not understand this. So how would I convince you of the value of truth, when you already don’t know it?
How about this: since truth=reality, the more you value and understand the truth the more real you become.
Does that begin to stir a brief awakening of understanding in your mind?
You didn’t answer the question.
Because you are pretending to not know why truth is or would be valuable. It is getting tedious.
Yes, and you are conflating multiple different things here.
There is actual value, then there is perceived value. These are not always the same.
There is value as such, the FACT that something has value, and then there is the personal value to yourself. Again, these are not always the same.
There is conscious (intentional, willful, understood) valuing, and then there is ‘unconscious’ or structural-level valuing (which can be pure structure and form, or it can be something like the unconsciousness of the animal biological level that operates on instincts/drives). Again, and for the third time now, these are not always the same (or leading to the same object or outcome).
This is not the place for such a specific detailed breakdown of valuing and self-valuing. We already have topics about VO. Pick one and write your questions in there, we can address them in greater depth at those places. If you want back into BTL you can talk to Fixed about that, I am fine having you back but only with his permission.
The real kicker here is that you just really do not understand why someone would value the truth simply because it is the truth. You can’t grasp this. You think “it must have some personal value to him, he must get something out of it…”. I consider that mindset very silly, childish even. Narcissistic if I am being perfectly honest, although I wouldn’t ascribe that to you here because I think you are genuinely just not getting it. Contra to the above where I said you are playing the fool (and maybe in some way you are doing both).
Can I break this down even more simply? I value truth. Sometimes I learn a truth that is “good for me” (gives some benefit to me or whatever). Other times I learn a truth that is “bad for me” (gives me some detriment or whatever). Most of the time I simply learn truths that expand my understanding and philosophical scope and ability. My mind IS a philosophical process. I don’t need to derive secondary goods or bad in order to value my own mind, my own self.
Get it?
Again you conflate two things that are not the same. Just because a person or a structure is a self-valuing does not mean that it exists or is operating in the same way as other self-valuings. The mere fact that two things (all things, really) can be accurately described as self-valuings does not automatically mean they are all identical in every way, or even in any way (other than the initial insight that they are all self-valuings).
And you need to ask why avoiding truths because of cognitive dissonance is inferior to directly valuing truth and freely exploring it for its own sake without giving into cognitive dissonance? Again, a real philosopher would not ask such a thing unless he was just trying to bait someone. Then again, you did mention that you admire Socrates…
I’d like to see what Fixed has to say about that.