Truth is a White Lie

@Reconstructo,

I agree that philosophy should not abandon what men like Plato had to offer it. Just as Kant wanted to make a place for faith and science simultaneous, I like to beat back scientistic shallowness to make a place for the value of myth. Read any Freidrich Schlegel? You'd probably like him. I'm strongly influenced by Carl Jung. I think that metaphysics often function as myth and/or conceptual poetry.

All is one and one is all. This is something that moves me. But I don't mistake it for a practical assertion. Christian myth is potent for me, as myth.

I want to have my cake and eat it too. I want the irony of the sophists with the transcendent feeling of a Plato, or of a Christian mystic.

Hell, Nietzsche was obviously a mystic at times. It's not often mentioned, but what is all this Dionysos? He just wanted to switch out Christ with something Greek.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;109309 wrote:

My completely unfashionable attitude is that truth is something that philosophers aspire to. Why aspire? because to the natural man, it is not something apparent. The natural man will usually see what he wants, in accordance with his wishes, conditioning and prejudices. If life is kind enough to knock all of that out of him and leave him intact, then his perception is enlarged to the extent he is not looking through his own spectacles all the time. I don't think Neitzsche ever got to that point. He might have idealised it or fantasized about it from various angles but in the end he fell short. So it is a lot easier from his position to parody the truth than to aspire to it. Didn't do him a lot of good though.

You mean that when I believe that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, I am only aspiring to the truth, but that I don't believe what is true? What do you know about Ecuador that I don't know?

@Reconstructo,

I think jeepres wants Truth with a capital T. Some see philosophy is a grand way, as something like the religion of wisdom. Others see it as a critical enterprise.

I want both.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;109336 wrote:

I want both.

Why?

That's all I want to ask, but I have to write a longer message
or the forum won't let me post.

@Reconstructo,

I take a more holistic view than some. A man's philosophy is only part of a man's worldview. Tristan Tzara is as valuable as Socrates, in my opinion. The New Testament is as important as The Republic.

Man is a being of myth and symbol as well as a being of critical thought. I want to develop as much of my human potential as possible.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;109345 wrote:

I want to develop as much of my human potential as possible.

I wanted this at one time also.
But then I discovered my potential was a myth.
I think it is because my parents were so critical of me.
They never came right out and said so, but they
showed all the signs of dissatisfaction.

How I envy you.

@Reconstructo,

Even if potential is a lie, it's a white lie. My dad always said I was full of sh*t. He accidentally made a sophist out of yours truly.

@Reconstructo,

Generally I make it a policy not to comment on neitszce, so henceforth will attempt to abide by this self-imposed ruling.

But I am with Prothero on that. I subscribe to one or another version of the perennial philosophy, which requires that there is indeed something perennial to aspire to.

It is a very old-fashioned notion.

@Reconstructo,

I still think I can play both sides. Why not? Maybe my "relativism" is just the shield of my faith? I relate to the motives of Kant. He loved both religion and science, and wanted to keep both in their place.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;109356 wrote:

It is a very old-fashioned notion.

I would say it is part of the ancient wisdom, lost in modernity, and completely trashed in postmodernism. Without it though, without the mythos, with only logos you have a lost culture, without purpose, direction or aim (without telos).

@prothero,

I agree. There must be telos. I agree with Jung that man is structured for telos. He will project telos. That telos is projected is an inference, and subject to doubt. But such is my practical faith, that we are programmed to respond to myth, and that myth guides us to some of life's highest experiences.

For me, even Hegel is under the spell of what Jung calls Archetypes. I sometimes think that Plato meant something similar with his Ideas.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;109336 wrote:

I think jeepres wants Truth with a capital T. Some see philosophy is a grand way, as something like the religion of wisdom. Others see it as a critical enterprise.

I want both.

Well, he may. But I don't. I don't even know what that would be. All I want is that it be true that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, since I believe that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. and I would like all of my beliefs to be true.

@Reconstructo,

If the truth changes, it would never have been truth. We only assume so.

@Leonard,

Leonard;109376 wrote:

If the truth changes, it would never have been truth. We only assume so.

Why? Why should not what is true be true until it changes? It is true that it is now 7:35 pm until it is after 7:36 pm.

@Reconstructo,

If by truth you mean correspondence to something Unchangeable. But where is this Unchangeable foundation of truth? Is it something like God, an axiomatic anchor?

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;109388 wrote:

If by truth you mean correspondence to something Unchangeable. But where is this Unchangeable foundation of truth? Is it something like God, an axiomatic anchor?

What makes you think that I believe that what the sentence corresponds to is unchangeable?

@kennethamy,

That was aimed at Leonard. I think you must have posted right before I did. I should have used a quote box. Sorry.

@Reconstructo,

prothero;109358 wrote:

I would say it is part of the ancient wisdom, lost in modernity, and completely trashed in postmodernism. Without it though, without the mythos, with only logos you have a lost culture, without purpose, direction or aim (no telos).

Why thanks Prothero. And note: I am not out to persuade. Everyone is at different points on the cycle, and that is OK by me. I will always present this perspective, to the best of my ability, and if it rings true for the reader, well and good. I think those who need to hear this perspective will respond to it. If not, leave it and come back to it later.

I am wary, however, about this 'white lies' argument. I think another way of looking at it is to say, well it is not really Truth that is at stake here, it is a more a way of eliciting perspectives and engaging in dialog. Even the traditional words for truth - Veritas, in Latin, Sat, in Sanskrit - denote a certain quality.

In Quito, Ecuador, it is currently 54 degrees Farenheit, and partially cloudy.

@Reconstructo,

It's just a metaphor, this truth is a white lie business. And it applies specifically (for me) to the arguments of philosophers, as it was inspired by Nietzsche on the Prejudices of Philosophers.

Nietzsche was obviously a bit the sickly Romantic type. I've hammered him for his faults in other forums.

Jeeprs: You say you are not out to persuade, and then you say that everyone is at different points on the cycle. I agree with this cycle metaphor. But I also call out its assertion of status. Or are you lower down in this cycle? It's unlikely you would say so. I could say that your transcendence is a white lie you tell yourself. But I'm not really that cynical. I do believe in rare ecstasies, realizations, etc., that are not easily described.

You are on a public forum, sharing your conception of truth. Inseminate might be a better word than persuade. Tossing seeds. (Sentences are viruses.)

No disrespect, just dialectical engagement.

@Reconstructo,

Fair comment. I was being a little disingenuous perhaps. OK, I *am* out to persuade. I would like to be on the winning side of the argument. But I try not to be, how shall we say, too emotionally commited to the outcome. Bu it is all very stream-of-consciousness and off the cuff. So I will say things that on reflection, I might have put differently. (Mind you it is one of the fun things about this medium.)

And, thus emboldened, will say, OK I disagree with the OP. I have a different notion of truth - that it is something that is sometimes spelt with a capital T, and that this sense of the word is of particular concern to philosophy. OK, that is out of step with the general outlook of modern society, who will say 'Capital T according to WHO?' or something. So this pragmatist, relativist, 'what-works-for-you' approach - I don't like it.

There, I've said it.

Philosophy Forum

Truth is a White Lie

Quick Links

My Account

able2know