Truth and Motive

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Epistemology
  3. » Truth and Motive

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 08:17 pm
We are animals with wants and needs. Truth is a tool for the pursuit of the these needs. One man's truth is another man's lie. In the saint's eyes, the atheist deceives himself. In the eyes of the atheist, the saint deceives himself. If "God" stays hidden, who's truth is the real truth? Is there is a real truth? And if you say yes, someone else thinks that you deceive yourself.

Joe identifies himself with objectivity and logic. Jim is a critical thinker who thinks objectivity and logic are two more idols, two more props for self esteem. But Jim knows that objectivity and logic have helped build hospitals and bombs. Joe doesn't understand Jim, and thinks Jim is just too lazy to be objective.

Jim thinks he thinks much harder than Joe. He thinks Joe is scared to let go of his pretend universal authority. Who is right? And how could such a thing be proven?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 09:44 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;111649 wrote:
We are animals with wants and needs. Truth is a tool for the pursuit of the these needs. One man's truth is another man's lie. In the saint's eyes, the atheist deceives himself. In the eyes of the atheist, the saint deceives himself. If "God" stays hidden, who's truth is the real truth? Is there is a real truth? And if you say yes, someone else thinks that you deceive yourself.

Joe identifies himself with objectivity and logic. Jim is a critical thinker who thinks objectivity and logic are two more idols, two more props for self esteem. But Jim knows that objectivity and logic have helped build hospitals and bombs. Joe doesn't understand Jim, and thinks Jim is just too lazy to be objective.

Jim thinks he thinks much harder than Joe. He thinks Joe is scared to let go of his pretend universal authority. Who is right? And how could such a thing be proven?


Well, if anyone is going to prove anything, it will have to be with logic and objectivity. How else? But all Jim has to do is to prove. And, to do that, he does not have to prove anything to anyone. If Proving is one thing. Proving to is another thing. They are completely independent. If Joe is a lazy idiot what difference does it make whether anyone can prove anything to him?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 09:58 pm
@Reconstructo,
Jim would say that nothing is "proven" but only believed. He might add that some beliefs have led to better results than other beliefs.

Jim might say that "reason is rhetoric, and proof persuasion." If Jim believes this, he knows that this viewpoint cannot make a claim to universal authority. But Jim believes he can do without such universal authority. Jim thinks that life is ultimately grounded on animal faith as much as upon more abstract beliefs. Jim offers his viewpoint (belief) up to those who might also find it useful/pleasurable. If he argues for this belief, he does it to keep his claws sharp, not because he expects people to accept beliefs that don't fit in with the rest of their beliefs. Jim sees people as networks of belief and desire. They take what appeals to them, and resist what threatens.
 
Deckard
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 10:07 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;111649 wrote:
We are animals with wants and needs. Truth is a tool for the pursuit of the these needs. One man's truth is another man's lie. In the saint's eyes, the atheist deceives himself. In the eyes of the atheist, the saint deceives himself. If "God" stays hidden, who's truth is the real truth? Is there is a real truth? And if you say yes, someone else thinks that you deceive yourself.

Joe identifies himself with objectivity and logic. Jim is a critical thinker who thinks objectivity and logic are two more idols, two more props for self esteem. But Jim knows that objectivity and logic have helped build hospitals and bombs. Joe doesn't understand Jim, and thinks Jim is just too lazy to be objective.

Jim thinks he thinks much harder than Joe. He thinks Joe is scared to let go of his pretend universal authority. Who is right? And how could such a thing be proven?


Joe is described holding onto something.
Jim is described as letting go of something.

Which is better: holding on our letting go?

Let's suppose there is a 3rd person: Bob

Bob started his philosophical career as a holder on.
Then at some point he tried letting go. It was a sort of experiment.
After a while Bob was bored with letting go and didn't feel it was getting him anywhere so he tried holding on again. He found he had gained a new appreciation for holding on to things.
But eventually Bob got bored with holding on again and he let go
He went back and forth like this for some time.
Then he realized that he was bored with going back and forth.
He realized he had to make a decision.
Either let go for good or hold on for good.
Which should he choose?
Bob realized that making a choice and sticking to it was a kind of holding on. He mentioned this to both Joe and Jim but neither seemed to know what he was talking about.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 10:08 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;111679 wrote:
Jim would say that nothing is "proven" but only believed. He might add that some beliefs have led to better results than other beliefs.

Jim might say that "reason is rhetoric, and proof persuasion." If Jim believes this, he knows that this viewpoint cannot make a claim to universal authority. But Jim believes he can do without such universal authority. Jim thinks that life is ultimately grounded on animal faith as much as upon more abstract beliefs. Jim offers his viewpoint (belief) up to those who might also find it useful/pleasurable. If he argues for this belief, he does it to keep his claws sharp, not because he expects people to accept beliefs that don't fit in with the rest of their beliefs. Jim sees people as networks of belief and desire. They take what appeals to them, and resist what threatens.


Well, I am afraid that Jim is somewhat dopey too. Not as dopey as Joe, but dopey, nevertheless. Don't you know any sensible people? But the fact is, no one has to prove anything to anyone in order to prove something. Whether a proof has been given does not depend on whether anyone has been persuaded by it.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 10:22 pm
@Reconstructo,
Bob explained all this to Harry. Harry nodded. Harry had a history of identifying with virtue or power in some form of another. At some point the traditional God broke down, was no longer believable for Harry. So Harry picked up Freud and T.S. Eliot and pretty soon was reading everything that seemed good. Harry saw knowledge in some vague sense as virtue and power. Harry soon immersed himself in philosophy, especially epistemology. He didn't want to be anyone's fool. But the more he studied epistemology side by side with depth psychology, the less he could believe that man was some cold calculator of truth. Also Harry immersed himself in women and especially in a woman, and this was as eye-opening as any of the books he read. He saw people die that never cared about epistemology or depth-psychology in the first place. And yet he had no doubt that their lives were quite real to them. So he developed an ironic attitude toward absolute objective truth. The humans he knew mostly didn't want truth except as a means. The minority that described themselves as philosophers reminded him of everyone else, putting aside their idiosyncratic "jargon" (which he himself enjoyed.) At some point Harry sniffed out the faith at the heart of every human pursuit. Action implied faith, he thought. He began to wonder if an escape from wishful thinking was wishful thinking. Then he wondered why we were so eager to escape wishful thinking in the first place? He noted that people liked to be admired, and in control. Priests, experts, rock stars, fathers, and even hermits often attained this. He theorized a single face beneath these masks. Harry always thought that Schopenhauer's Will was an oversimplification of human motive, but simplification seems to be one of these motives. Anyway, Harry didn't expect to meet humans without motives and often sought the motives beneath their words, for humans were sly, he thought. They sometimes hid their motives from themselves. He thought stand-up comedians were as wise as philosophers, if not wiser. He thought a good novelist was often better than the best logician. Harry saw the one-up game everywhere, and saw also that this seeing of the one-up game was one more example of it.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 10:29 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;111693 wrote:
Bob explained all this to Harry. Harry nodded. Harry had a history of identifying with virtue or power in some form of another. At some point the traditional God broke down, was no longer believable for Harry. So Harry picked up Freud and T.S. Eliot and pretty soon was reading everything that seemed good. Harry saw knowledge in some vague sense as virtue and power. Harry soon immersed himself in philosophy, especially epistemology. He didn't want to be anyone's fool. But the more he studied epistemology side by side with depth psychology, the less he could believe that man was some cold calculator of truth. Also Harry immersed himself in women and especially in a woman, and this was as eye-opening as any of the books he read. He saw people die that never cared about epistemology or depth-psychology in the first place. And yet he had no doubt that their lives were quite real to them. So he developed an ironic attitude toward absolute objective truth. The humans he knew mostly didn't want truth except as a means. The minority that described themselves as philosophers reminded him of everyone else, putting aside their idiosyncratic "jargon" (which he himself enjoyed.) At some point Harry sniffed out the faith at the heart of every human pursuit. Action implied faith, he thought. He began to wonder if an escape from wishful thinking was wishful thinking. Then he wondered why we were so eager to escape wishful thinking in the first place? He noted that people liked to be admired, and in control. Priests, experts, rock stars, fathers, and even hermits often attained this. He theorized a single face beneath these masks. Harry always thought that Schopenhauer's Will was an oversimplification of human motive, but simplification seems to be one of these motives. Anyway, Harry didn't expect to meet humans without motives and often sought the motives beneath their words, for humans were sly, he thought. They sometimes hid their motives from themselves. He thought stand-up comedians were as wise as philosophers, if not wiser. He thought a good novelist was often better than the best logician. Harry saw the one-up game everywhere, and saw also that this seeing of the one-up game was one more example of it.


Sorry. Don't follow. Probably too subtle for me. Anyway, please simplify. And, for God's sake, not so many notes. Make it a brief etude rather than a sonata. And save the parables for religion.
 
Quinn phil
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 11:18 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;111649 wrote:
We are animals with wants and needs. Truth is a tool for the pursuit of the these needs. One man's truth is another man's lie. In the saint's eyes, the atheist deceives himself. In the eyes of the atheist, the saint deceives himself. If "God" stays hidden, who's truth is the real truth? Is there is a real truth? And if you say yes, someone else thinks that you deceive yourself.

Joe identifies himself with objectivity and logic. Jim is a critical thinker who thinks objectivity and logic are two more idols, two more props for self esteem. But Jim knows that objectivity and logic have helped build hospitals and bombs. Joe doesn't understand Jim, and thinks Jim is just too lazy to be objective.

Jim thinks he thinks much harder than Joe. He thinks Joe is scared to let go of his pretend universal authority. Who is right? And how could such a thing be proven?


You know, I think that in this situation, one might say that us philosophers are Jim. Rather, us 'intellectuals', who think out every aspect of something, rather than what is "needed". I think both of them are 'right', and both of them are definitely needed.

Joes' maintain the world the way it is today. Joes' are the scientists, the doctors, the engineers, the mathematicians (etc...). They apply he same equations over and over and keep us the way we are. Which is good. THose people are probably more needed then we are. However, Jims' are the ones, I believe, that move us forward. They give us mottos, goals, sayings, thoughts, ideas, (etc...). This not only keeps us thinking about what's going on it the world, but others as well.

We have in the box thinkers (Joe), and out of the box thinkers, (Jim).

Thus, having everything in and out of the box, we have everything. But only when Jim and Joe work together. Both are right.
 
Deckard
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 11:23 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;111693 wrote:
Harry saw the one-up game everywhere, and saw also that this seeing of the one-up game was one more example of it.


Re: The one-up game

That sounds like the struggle for recognition. Not necessarily Hegel's description but the struggle for recognition nevertheless. There can be mutual recognition, mutual lack of recognition, or one person can recognize while the other refuses to.

Most people are capable of mutual recognition. Some people just aren't capable of it for whatever reason. Possibly they need a woman in their life. Possibly there was some tragedy in their lives that damaged them. Possibly they were born without the ability to recognize others as is the case with psychopaths.

Everyone is a little competitive but most feel more comfortable with mutual recognition than with the one-up game.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 01:51 am
@Quinn phil,
Quinn;111717 wrote:

We have in the box thinkers (Joe), and out of the box thinkers, (Jim).

Thus, having everything in and out of the box, we have everything. But only when Jim and Joe work together. Both are right.


I completely agree. If I tend to side with "out of the box" thinkers, it's because that's what appeals to me. No doubt the other side is passionately represented.

Great interpretation!

---------- Post added 12-16-2009 at 02:54 AM ----------

Deckard;111720 wrote:
Re: The one-up game

That sounds like the struggle for recognition. Not necessarily Hegel's description but the struggle for recognition nevertheless. There can be mutual recognition, mutual lack of recognition, or one person can recognize while the other refuses to.

Most people are capable of mutual recognition. Some people just aren't capable of it for whatever reason. Possibly they need a woman in their life. Possibly there was some tragedy in their lives that damaged them. Possibly they were born without the ability to recognize others as is the case with psychopaths.

Everyone is a little competitive but most feel more comfortable with mutual recognition than with the one-up game.



Excellent reply. I would say that we are mix of the competitive and the sympathetic. Presumably both of these traits have served the species thus far. Perhaps these forces are like an alternating current. At moments we strike in the name of our faith. At other moments we are open to recognize the faith of the other as also valid. I use "faith" in a loose sense, of course, as I don't think faith is as confined to religion as some might suggest.
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 10:34 pm
@Reconstructo,
I agree with Jim over Joe...but I don't think there are many people like Joe. Maybe for a few years when they're young.

Jim is more like the ideal, but we end up like bob because relaxing into joe when it's convenient is too easy.
 
Quinn phil
 
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 11:41 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;111988 wrote:
I agree with Jim over Joe...but I don't think there are many people like Joe. Maybe for a few years when they're young.

Jim is more like the ideal, but we end up like bob because relaxing into joe when it's convenient is too easy.


Yeah, relaxing into Joe is easy, sometimes. I've made it a personal goal to stay like Jim, even when I find things that I'm widely accepted in. I believe that outside of the box, I'm literally only limited to what I can conceive.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 03:55 am
@Quinn phil,
Quinn;112008 wrote:
I believe that outside of the box, I'm literally only limited to what I can conceive.

That's exactly how I feel. I like to think of philosophers as explorers, inventors, poets, comedians even....
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Epistemology
  3. » Truth and Motive
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 04/24/2019 at 02:55:52