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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

Harry saw the one-up game everywhere, and saw also that this seeing of the one-up game was one more example of it.

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.

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.

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.

I believe that outside of the box, I'm literally only limited to what I can conceive.