The Value of Truth

[Received]

Does truth have an intrinsic value or an extrinsic value? That is, should we seek the truth for no other reason than seeking the truth, or for some higher reason?

 

[ChristianT]

When we find the truth, or at the very least understand it better, we can use it to judge other things. We can understand better how the world works, and what works in the world. We can use it to develop laws, relationships, and communities.

 

[Received]

Sounds like "we can use it" implies a utilitarian value of truth.

 

[ChristianT]

We can use truth in the same way we can use math. It's immaterial, but the concept can be taken into account when doing things (such as forming laws &c.) and may make the result more uniform or standard.

Otherwise I'm not sure what you mean { @myself}

 

[Prayer Circle]

I would think one would have to take into account first whether they're seeking to value or identify absolute or relative truth.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I believe truth has intrinsic value. It is the indicator of reality. That is, the more "truth" we know or understand, the more accurate our perception of reality becomes. So to detemine how much you value truth, ask yourself how important your perception of reality is to you.

 

[juvenissun]

Does truth have an intrinsic value or an extrinsic value? That is, should we seek the truth for no other reason than seeking the truth, or for some higher reason?

The ultimate reason for everything, includes seeking the truth, is to benefit yourself in the eternity.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I htink that finding truth is best done with a purpose. For instance one might decide to know the truth of what lies under every car parked in the street, but it would be a waste of time to behave like that. Or one might desire to know what it is like to severely burn oneself, but it would not be a very worthwhile truth to grasp. So we ought to use wisdom in the search for truth.

 

[Received]

I believe truth has intrinsic value. It is the indicator of reality. That is, the more "truth" we know or understand, the more accurate our perception of reality becomes. So to detemine how much you value truth, ask yourself how important your perception of reality is to you.

For the vast majority of people, saying that truth has importance because it helps us in our perception of reality is a utilitarian value: perceiving reality is useful for us because it allows us to fulfill our goals, survive, etc.

But only for the philosopher, autodidact, or the mystic is truth valued for what it is. All three find value in simply learning as much as they can about the world for no other reason than because they want to learn as much as possible about the world. The act is rewarding in itself. On a phenomenological level, Heidegger relegated the spiritual to the act of experiencing being as it is, without being mediated (and therefore negated) by concepts or language. I see a tree and value it as a particular tree, not for its treeness (which is a signifier) or the idea I have about this tree, but as the unique phenomenon I experience before me. This experience is rewarding in itself.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Perhaps the quest for truth is a virtue. We could perhaps call that virtue "rationality" or "honesty", and that virtue may be an aspect of what it is to be a good (well-functioning) human being.

This would make truth (or its quest) an end-in-itself, and not merely a "utilitarian" enterprise. The reason is that something can be an end-in-itself even if it is also a means to something else. This does not have to be either-or.

If the virtue of truth-finding is an aspect of proper human functioning, it is not just productive of the actualization of one's human potentials, it becomes expressive of one's very humanity. It is that for which the actualization of human potentials takes place. And that makes it an end-in-itself, and not merely "utilitarian".

This suggests that people who abandon truth-finding (or truth-accepting) for the sake of comfort may be mistreating themselves (that is, failing to actualize their humanity fully; to be "off-target"), even if accepting comforting falsehoods may seem more "utilitarian".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Received]

I think when we're talking about something being an end-in-itself or not is an either-or, given that what determines this is related to our intentions in particular circumstances. That is, I either engage in this activity for its own sake or in order to help me out in some future way. It's the basic division between intrinsic and instrumental value, even if an act that's valued intrinsically aids the individual in a deeper way. If I were to stop looking at nature because it's beautiful (beauty being that which is perceived for its own sake, i.e., intrinsic value), that would be an intrinsic value, even if it may bump me out of a funk and make my day better. But if I take this same act of looking at something and consider it not for its beauty but because it will help me understand something better, then it's instrumental. Often in view of our experiences we have oscillations between instrumental and intrinsic value in the same act of experiencing.

Virtue ethics might be a great example of engaging in activities for their own sakes that in turn result in individual growth across different qualities (virtues). After all, that's the goal according to Aristotle: contemplation, which means considering something for its own sake -- valuing truth intrinsically. This might be extended to all other virtues. Patience may be a byproduct growth in our character from the intrinsic act of waiting things out in particular circumstances, because such an act is (as Aristotle would say) beautiful (i.e., valued in itself). Maybe there's a higher maturity of the soul that results from valuing things in themselves, whether virtues or things in general, that would be more limited if it involved viewing things for the sake of something else (even if this means being "better" at certain virtues).

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think when we're talking about something being an end-in-itself or not is an either-or

These are the possibilities:

1) Some activity is an end-in-itself and not a means to anything else
2) Some activity is an end-in-itself and also a means to another end
3) Some activity is only a means-to-an-end
4) Some activity is neither a means to an end nor an end-in-itself.

An example of (1) is eudaimonia. Personal flourishing is not sought for any sake but itself.

An example of (2) is enjoying art while trying to get a good grade for an art class.

An example of (3) is driving to one's art class, when one would prefer to teleport there

An example of (4) is creating post-modernist art. (Well, in my opinion.)

I'm not just making this up. This is a well-known view in philosophy.

The point here is that it is not the case that something must either be an end-in-itself or a means to an end, as if these are mutually exclusive options. (2) is possible.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Received]

Right, but what I'm saying is that given the linearity of consciousness (i.e., the fact that we can only view one "thing" at a time), we work according to an either-or regarding whether a value is intrinsic or instrumental. Comprehensively we can, e.g., appreciate a work of art and also study it to get a good art grade, but in terms of phenomenology (i.e., immediate experience), we're either in the appreciating-art-for-itself (intrinsic) or appreciating-art-for-good-grade (extrinsic) modes of relating. We can look back on a collection of instances of relatings (which could be intrinsic or extrinsic in their value of the thing in question, related to art) and say "we both valued something intrinsically and something extrinsically," and that's true, but it's also the case that there's an either-or in the actual moment of perception, and that's what I'm focusing on.

 

[juvenissun]

Truth is usually difficult to understand. So, If I don't feel the need, why should I worry about finding the truth? It is good to know the truth. But what would be the problem if I don't try to find it? Would I enjoy less my life because I don't know the truth?

 

[quatona]

Does truth have an intrinsic value or an extrinsic value? That is, should we seek the truth for no other reason than seeking the truth, or for some higher reason?

You´d do me a great favour if you´d define "truth" for purposes of your question and this thread.

 

[juvenissun]

You´d do me a great favour if you´d define "truth" for purposes of your question and this thread.

received: Don't do that. Otherwise, you will never know what a truth is.

 

[Davian]

You´d do me a great favour if you´d define "truth" for purposes of your question and this thread.

received: Don't do that. Otherwise, you will never know what a truth is.

[youtube]dddAi8FF3F4[/youtube]

 

[variant]

Sounds like "we can use it" implies a utilitarian value of truth.

All things only have value in utility.

How else would we define "value"?

 

[Received]

According to preference. A value is a memorized and categorized positive experience state.

 

[variant]

According to preference. A value is a memorized and categorized positive experience state.

And how is that different than utility? Utility being a measure of satisfaction or happiness?