Truth for the sake of Truth

Would you lie, and compromise your morality, to ascertain the Capital T Truth?

What if it were the only way to obtain a higher level, knowledge, and wisdom of truth?

What if Capital T Truth requires you to become evil, would you commit to evil?

Most people on occasion modifies their conception of what has happened. This can be intentional, unintentional and also grey shades of everything in-between. Perception is an interpretive process and always leads to a series of points of view, some may reflect “reality” more than others, But it is a brave person who demands that their own view of the truth is the best one.

No one has access to Truth with a capital ‘T’
Well - not unless you actually define what you mean by it.

Putting over your own POV does not necessarily compromise your morality, nor should actively and purposefully telling lies. Lies can protect people and lead to moral good on occasion.

Truth with a Capital T? It sounds like God with a Capital G - something that evil people will use to get good people to commit evil for them.

There is no capital-T Truth. There are true statements, and there are false statements. The rest is atoms.

If there is no Truth with a capital T, (ruth?). :smiley:

Then would you agree with me that what can be true for one person, can be false for another, and Vice versa?

No. But denying a metaphysical ontology of Truth doesn’t necessarily imply that all statements are up for grabs, at all.

Here’s a true statement: there’s a mug on my desk. If you think otherwise, you’re wrong; there are no politicoreligious ramifications, and there is no divine apperception involved. Nothing in common with the statement “I have blue eyes”, except that they both describe things well, as language is generally used to do.

Obviously the ontology of your mug is not at issue. But one example does not make a case for all examples.
For the sake of your mug, I’d most usually apply the word fact.
For truth you need a bible. Yes, I realise that I am being flippant.
I am just giving reign to the majority of truth seekers in the world that demand the use of the word Truth to matter of faith.

How about this. Truth has no ontology. It exists in relation only?

It kind of is, because truth rests on a foundation of knowledge and judgment. You’d need omniscience to obtain Capital T Truth. But, given its possibility as a hypothetical point, capital T Truth represents an ability to usurp control over truth statements. It’d be like claiming yourself an authority on truth, logic, and judgment, all at the same time. If somebody judged a statement true, even subjectively true “for myself”, then somebody with capital T Truth would be able to manipulate this personal, subjective truth. It assumes an objective standard of deriving truth, or even imposes a false standard against less intelligent people. If logic is more objective than subjective, then capital T Truth makes sense, and becomes more probable over time.

I’m not sure I follow. What do you mean “to manipulate… subjective truth”?

Even if I claim myself an authority, why will people with less knowledge and worse judgement believe me? What power over them does it give?

That sounds like something I could live with :slight_smile:

People convince others that their personal, subjective judgments are invalid or false, even if they are valid or true. People can become convinced by lies, usually from a trusted authority figure. One person’s judgment trumps and overrides other people’s judgments. For example, “only God can judge me”. To many Christians and secularists, only an absolute authority has the power to judge people, according to their rationalization of moral justification and validity. If only God can judge some people, then what does this mean for the courts and legal system? What does this mean for a judge sentencing a criminal to jail? It means that our moral, secular, legal system is invalid, according to the Christians who hold this belief in their heads. Because a judge does not have the power to judge people, only God does.

People in the united states are trained as a whole, not to pass judgment on other people, and not to discriminate material phenomena. Therefore, people require a centralized, absolute authority, to do their discriminating and judging for them, on their behalf. This is a symptom of how children are indoctrinated, educated, and raised. The society intentionally or unintentionally raises children not to become “judgmental”. It’s a bad word. Judgment is evil. Only God can judge others.

So, you personally, have no power to judge people, by this rationality. Now, people can judge these statements as false, and claim that people do in fact have the power to judge other people. But then, you are necessitating a precluding system of morality. Who has the–Right–to judge other people, and who has the–Right–to discriminate for or against other people? This is the begged question.

All this is required before passing simple value judgments on truth claims. It’s not as simple as saying “Statement #1 is true, but Statement #2 is false”. Who gives you the right to judge truth??? Who gives you logical validity to discriminate between statements??? What gives you the power to dictate what is truth, let alone Capital T Truth???

The main problem with truth, is that too many people overlook it as presumptuous and as assumptions. People assume the truth of certain statements, in certain contexts “The sky is blue.” But this is giving every human being the benefit of the doubt. And it says nothing about truth, Capital T Truth, judgment, how judgments become formed, how and why they’re necessary in the first place, and the underlying moral foundations used to give context, and grow “truth” from the seemingly sporadic, intuitive, and emotive aspects of language. Too many times, or perhaps all the time, people believe “truth is on my side”. That’s why skepticism and cynicism, in philosophy, are required to pull specialized thinkers away from these possibly false assumptions.

If truth is not on your side, then again, this is just another falsified truth claim. It can be false, or falsified, that truth is on your side. Because, maybe, truth is objective and is on “nobody’s side”.

THis is a most curious part of your statement.
WHilst I can accept that “people are not trained to…” I find it hard to see how people are trained not too pass judgement…"
First, as a teacher, I can understand how a discriminating sense is neglected in education, but I’d find it hard to imagine how i would go about actively training people NOT to pass judgement.
Now taking this at face value seems odd in any case. Are you speaking from personal experience? What does being trained to NO pass judgement look like, what is involved in it?
The next part of this extract seems to suggest that because people have this negative experience they “require” the central authority to think for them. Who is doing the “requiring”?
I think I agree with you but find that you seem to be expressing in in an odd way?
People are definitely not critical enough. People tend to accept too much and do not think stuff through very well. You can see this on the religious Forums, where plain and critical speaking is banned. It’s as if the participants ask the moderators in loco parentis to take on the role of God and punish the sinner; the blasphemer.

The committing of evil acts tends to prevent you from seeing clearly what is true and what isn’t. Your questions are like asking if you would destroy your healthy garden in order to be given nutritious food. There may be bizarre occasions where such a choice makes sense, but this would be rare, and… bizarre.

Sometimes evil is truer than good. Don’t Christians convince themselves that they own the Capital T Truth of God, and that their god is the one true god, and god is on their side? Now assume these premises are false, or worse, lies. If Christians are lying about God, goodness, and truth. Then what is in fact, good and evil, true and false? Who decides? Who dictates? Who judges? Who values? Who claims? If evil is true, then you just openly admitted that perhaps your entire moral foundation, and view of life, is outright wrong or faulty.

The problem is conflating morality and evil, with rationality and truth. The two are categorically different, for secularists and atheists. If you are more inclined toward religion and spirituality, then you will automatically assume good = true, and false/lie = evil. This assumption maybe false, or, a lie. If it’s false, then your moral premises all collapse.

Why don’t you put all this to the religious members of the Forum?
See how long you last before you get a warning, then a ban.
In this way you will know “who decides”.

If a post is directed at me, can that be made explicit somehow? Quote me or address me by name? Thanks.

Which post.
Do you mean the one specifically directed to rununder?
So, no not directed at you.

Haha, wow. I screwed up bad! I was wondering if rununder’s post was a response to mine. I couldn’t quite tell.

You are correct, anon. My response was directed to yours. Hobbes is on ignore, for trolling behavior.

I’ll crawl back under my bridge.

Ah, ok. I’ll answer back when I find some time.

I kind of like virtue theory. There are moral virtues and intellectual virtues. Sometimes they might seem to contradict each other - I suppose sometimes they really do contradict each other - but in general each supports the development of the other. Think of it in as basic a way as this: can a person who is enraged think clearly? How intelligent, really, is a person who has committed murder? He may be intelligent in many ways, but the very act of committing murder is a particular form of ignorance.