What's more important: truth or health?

To put this into context, imagine that there was no absolute truth, or at least that it could never be known. What next for the human race? Should we not pursue ideas and beliefs that were at least healthy?

After pondering this question, consider this one: What if we could know truth, after all? Would it still be warranted to put it ahead of health?

Now, in most cases, I think the great majority of people would opt for health above all things. What good is the pursuit of truth if we’re dead or dying? But I see myself in a culture in which the truth is often pursued no matter what the cost. From a certain vantage point, we’re almost obsessed. Sometimes I think that the average person would rather know that a meteoroid was headed towards Earth and would obliterate us all in a matter of a week, and that there was absolutely nothing we could do about it, rather than be oblivious to this fact. He would incur significant mental problems such as debilitating levels of fear, terrifying dreams, stomach ulcers, high blood pressure, etc., all things he could otherwise avoid by being blissfully unaware of the meteoroid. REMEMBER: doom is inevitable in this case - truth doesn’t help him.

Of course, in reality, knowing that a meteor was headed towards Earth actually would be helpful. It would give us a chance to do something about it (send a nuclear warhead to destroy it - I dunno), thereby preserving, least of all things, our health. But I’m just being hypothetical here. So could you if you tried hard to image similar scenarios. The point is, could there be hypothetical situations in which knowing the truth would put our health at risk more than oblivion would… and should we, therefore, raise health to a higher position on our priority list as a species?

Personally, my first response to this would be that, of course, truth is important. I don’t think we could have health without truth. The medical profession, after all, looks to science for guidance on maintaining and pursuing health. It depends on it. But all this proves is that we shouldn’t toss truth straight out the window. That’s not what I’m saying, however. I’m not asking, is truth unimportant. I’m asking, should it come ahead or just behind health as a priority. What should doctors do if a patient was found to be fatally suffering from a deadly disease and the only cure was for her endocrine system to produce chemicals in large amounts, chemicals that are only produced by her brain when she is, at all times, in a positive, uplifted, cheery, and hopeful mood?

Thats all i’ve read up to…

If there were no absolute truth(s), there would be no existence.

If you want to make that we could’n’t comprehend that you’d be looking a different animal.

Since what your saying isn’t a possibility it isn’t that relevent to the real world and anything you could gain from your questions could probably be asked in a more relevent way.

  1. Truth and existence are two different things. The philosophical community of today has moved beyond Plato. Maybe you should join us.

  2. My proposed thought experiment was two-fold: “imagine that there was no absolute truth, or at least that it could never be known.” For someone of your persuasion, I recommend going with the bold text.

  3. Since you won’t read through my OP, I’ll just have to repeat myself in order to address your point:

Being dismissive and jumping to conclusions is a sure way to reassert your own prejudicial stance in relation to other people.

My point again was with our given perspective existence is an absolute truth.
no absolute truth = no existance.

For us to be incapable of comprehending this we or the laws of the universe would end be being quite different despite being as far is known improbable near impossible therefore your question if comes directly from these imposible circumstances are unrelevant to reality ( as far as shown ) or there would have been no need for that example to help readers understand your question.

I read the rest of your post and i was right, a hypothesis that is illogical and irrelevant to reality makes for a question that is illogical and irrelevant.

Your question has too many illogicalities for me to answer.

“Being dismissive…”

I was being rational, it helps you to be right in your assertions also with efficiency among other things.

Look, oni, my question is very simple: what should come first, the pursuit of truth or the pursuit of health? This is a very down to Earth question, it has real and practical implications, and has the potential to change a whole assortment of policies on many levels of society. I’m not especially interested in debating whether or not absolute truths really do exist in a platonic sense or whether or not there can be existence without them. If my opening question strikes you as pointless or illogical, then ignore it - it really doesn’t matter. I’m sure even you can come up with something to say about what my question really boils down to. If not, then forgive me if I brush you off in future posts.

Your question boils down to illogicallities but the most reasoned answer i can give is, human having truth alone holds no value whilst healths value is inherant. If there was specific details for the nature of truth or the circumstance the answer may differ.

Truth, definitely.

Unlike the Last Man who would likely choose health.

They’re the same thing.

A

On principle?

As in, if you’re not in tune with the truth, you’re crazy? That can’t always be the case. What about the scenario I gave above in which the only way to cure the patient is for the doctors to convince her that nothing’s wrong?

No, I didn’t say anything about being crazy. You’re making assumptions. I said that truth is the same thing as health. The word “health” comes from the word “whole”. To be whole. There are perspectives of truth but “the truth” is the whole lot of truths with all their various perspectives. To ask a person to choose between truth or health is absurd. Of course we choose health. Of course we choose truth.

As for convincing somebody that nothing is wrong when they’re ill, we’d have to be quite switched off. I mean, if my body is telling me I have a headache and you’re telling me that I don’t, are you trying to convince me that I’m crazy? You’re gonna have to take a different approach because by telling me my headache doesn’t exist, you’re not helping me. My headache exists. You have to find a method that includes truth if you’re asking me to heal myself mentally.

Sorry, didn’t mean to put words in your mouth. I was just asking.

Okay, so they have the same root. But the way you put it seems to confuse what things are whole. Health would be the whole self - as in, the whole human organism, in all its proper functionalities and organization. The whole truth, however, refers to things beyond the human organism - it refers to the entire body of facts about existence and logic.

No. The scenario I gave in my OP is meant to give a hypothetical example of how refraining from telling the truth to the patient may, in fact, save her life. Re-read it again - I’m sure it should be clear how this is. You’re headache example just doesn’t fit with what I’m saying. It has nothing to do with trying to convince someone that they are crazy or that what they feel (physically or mentally) is not real. Let’s suppose that the patient in my example doesn’t actually feel anything wrong. Suppose she just went in to get a routine check up and the doctors found this desease.

You’re trying to apply a black and white answer to a grey question. Life is not one or the other, either or, it’s complex and yes there is such a thing as thinking oneself healthy, but, your example is specific. Your question is too limited, therefore your answer is too limited. There are no answers gib, only directions, and the directions always lie in the question.

I think you’re right. It isn’t as black and white as I’m putting it. Still, I want to see what kind of answers people come up with, along with their justifications. I do have my own opinion (that healthy is sometimes more important that truth), and so I will question those who side more with truth a little more passionately, but I wouldn’t do this to death. I’d like to see what kinds of points people come up with on either side. I’d like to see if anything novel comes up. I guess I want a clearer picture of what kinds of arguments can be made for or against it, which will help me understand my own position better. I’m not out to prove anything.

Fair enough. But all the while know that there is a bigger question.

Here’s a thought;

Wouldn’t the importance of health be relative to the truths discovered by the pursuit at hand?

For example, given the scenario that in the pursuit for truth one discovers a truth to be of an afterwordly heaven which can only be got by living a sick or unhealthy life, wouldn’t healths importance rely on that?

Something that I think crucial to this topic is whether being healthy is intrinsically good. My position is that isn’t, even though it is desirable by pretty much all of life.

And that is?

That’s a good point. It brings up a lot of follow up question like:

Should “health” be extended into the afterlife? I mean, would it be fair to consider an eternity in Hell unhealthy? You certainly couldn’t define health based on longevity or likelyhood of dying in that case.

Also, I think what you say about the intrinsic value of health could also be said about Truth. What makes Truth intrinsicly good? If we could find an answer for either of these, would it be equally applicable to the other?

What is truth? What is health?

Interesting.

I tended to see health as propriety and harmony.
The right amounts, in the right places, at the right times.

But, as far as “whole” is concerned, I considered wholeness a non-selective, non-biased merge of everything-that-is. Maybe my concept is corrupted by an illusion of three-dimensional-space, and everything is not separete or incomplete or un-whole? Probably not.

We should also talk about the concepts of perfection, too.

In some cases, making the gene pool more healthy, would require allot of killing… “Natural selection”, as it were. Unhealthy for one being, and healthy for another. Also, imagine a wolf eating a mouse. The wolf may be gaining more “health” from the other one, whilst the other one has lost its “healthy”. So you see, health comes at a prince. But “truth” is something which has to do with reflection; truth can even be stored as an immaterial sort of information… very small and coming in at nearly zero-cost.

The power of a system depends upon how many other systems support that system via conformity. Ex: A moral ideal only gains power if it has many believers. And a body only gains power when many other bodies conform into it somehow, whether in part or in full. In some cases, the health of one person may indirectly cause the death of thousands of other beings. So, what does that have to do with “truth”? Isn’t “health” more to do with system-sustainment, and system-completion, individually?

Cognitive sensual affirmation;
Environmental syncronization.

Sustained and actuated system intention.