Happiness or Truth?

[bhsmte]

Happiness is not easy to distinguish amongst different people and I don't think is the right term to use in regards to the OP.

Happiness is a fleeting term, as no one is always happy, nor is anyone always sad.

In regards to whether people choose to seek and acknowledge truths that are backed by evidence, has much more to do with their psychological make up and that is very complex. Some people choose to manufacture their own truths, without evidence, because it satisfies a need for them. Others, need to find truths backed with evidence, because it is uncomfortable for them to think they don't understand or are living a life in which they are simply fooling themselves.

 

[Willie T]

I guess what I was hoping for was that someone might actually look up "truth" in the Bible. John 14:6 being the first one that comes to mind for me.... "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." Or the same book and chapter, verses 16 and 17 where The Holy Spirit is called... "the spirit of truth".

Yeah, I'm a little old-fashioned and tunnel visioned.... I like to try to talk about things as the Bible talks about them when it's something like this.

The Bible is the Word of Truth
Psalm 119:160 The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.

Daniel 10:21 But I will tell you what is inscribed in the book of truth: there is none who contends by my side against these except Michael, your prince.

John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.

Ephesians 1:13-14 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

James 1:18 Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

God Leads in Truth
Job 34:12 Of a truth, God will not do wickedly, and the Almighty will not pervert justice.

Psalm 25:5 Lead me in your truth and teach me, for you are the God of my salvation; for you I wait all the day long.

Psalm 43:3 Send out your light and your truth; let them lead me; let them bring me to your holy hill and to your dwelling!

Psalm 86:11 Teach me your way, O LORD, that I may walk in your truth; unite my heart to fear your name.

James 1:18 Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

Jesus Teaches Truth; Jesus Is Truth
Bible Verses About Truth
"Let us rejoice in truth, whenever we see its lamp burning."

Matthew 22:16 And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone’s opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances.

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

John 8:31-32 … So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

John 17:8 For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. (Jesus speaking)

Walking in and Speaking Truth
Psalm 15:1-2 O LORD, who shall sojourn in your tent? Who shall dwell on your holy hill? He who walks blamelessly and does what is right and speaks truth in his heart;

Zechariah 8:16 These are the things that you shall do: Speak the truth to one another; render in your gates judgments that are true and make for peace;

Ephesians 4:25 Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another.

1 John 1:8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

1 John 3:18 Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.

 

[Cearbhall]

It seems like we have a sort of faith-based optimism that at the end of the road of truth good things are in store. Otherwise, why would we equate truth with happiness; that is, consider truth the ultimate good?

I agree. Humans seem to possess an inescapable and unrelenting feeling that things aren't as good as they could be.

However, I also feel that truth in and of itself can be happiness because it gives us control.

 

[Gottservant]

To know God or to experience God's love? Which?

 

[Ken-1122]

I'm not convinced that we want truth at all costs. I think we want justification more than truth. If truth does not justify what we want it to then we will look for or create an alternate "truth". To desire truth for truth's sake has to be a gift from God.

I doubt most people are as dishonest as you claim.

K

 

[Received]

I don't think that really makes people dishonest, per se.

But if we were able to quantitatively distinguish truth statements in such a way where people were able to "have" truthful ideas, and each of these ideas brought with them instances of pain, probably only neurotic people would want truth. So no, we don't want truth at all costs, but only on condition that truth at least correlates with happiness.

We can take this a Nietzschean step further: truth and particularly truth systems are often expressions of the will to power. For example, a lot of people want perception of the truth only for the sake of overcoming and even "winning" (against "them") that's involved in having the "truth".

And I'd go further: truth is faith (yes) in the goodness of the universe, in such a way where the more truths we attain the happier we'll be.

 

[Ken-1122]

I don't think that really makes people dishonest, per se.

To seek an alternate truth (lie) because because the real truth does not justify what we want it to; how is that different than being dishonest?

Ken

 

[bhsmte]

To seek an alternate truth (lie) because because the real truth does not justify what we want it to; how is that different than being dishonest?

Ken

The people who practice the behavior you describe above, don't view their seeking an alternate truth, because they are denying the real truth as being dishonest. The dishonesty may be obvious to others who observe the behavior, but to the person who has the psychological need to deny the truth and manufacture their own truth, it gives them what they need.

 

[Ken-1122]

The people who practice the behavior you describe above, don't view their seeking an alternate truth, because they are denying the real truth as being dishonest. The dishonesty may be obvious to others who observe the behavior, but to the person who has the psychological need to deny the truth and manufacture their own truth, it gives them what they need.

So in other words, they are living in denial? I would hope most people are not that way, I know I am not.

Ken

 

[bhsmte]

So in other words, they are living in denial? I would hope most people are not that way, I know I am not.

Ken

Denial is one of our fundamental defense mechanisms used to protect our psyche and it isn't going away anytime soon.

Everyone uses denial to some degree, the difference amongst people is how long they are willing to deny, before they acknowledge they are mistaken.

 

[poolerboy0077]

I wouldn't reduce everything to mere happiness since people can be happy for bad reasons. A much better approach, I think, is that of Sam Harris' thesis from his book The Moral Landscape which is about well-being, instead.

 

[Eudaimonist]

A much better approach, I think, is that of Sam Harris' thesis from his book The Moral Landscape which is about well-being, instead.

What is his concept of well-being?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[poolerboy0077]

What is his concept of well-being?

He provides a thought experiment he calls "the worst possible misery for everyone" to try pinning such an elusive term down. Imagine a universe in which all conscious creatures suffer the worst possible misery. Any navigation away from this space is an experience of well-being and flourishing. Having once admitted that the extremities of absolute misery and absolute well-being are different, one has acknowledged the reality of a moral landscape on which one, in principle, may navigate.

 

[Eudaimonist]

He provides a thought experiment he calls "the worst possible misery for everyone" to try pinning such an elusive term down. Imagine a universe in which all conscious creatures suffer the worst possible misery.

How is misery so different from happiness? Is it just a feeling like happiness? It still sounds very subjective and psychological to me.

Is he perhaps referring not so much to a state of mind, but to a state of affairs in which life is made next to impossible?

Any navigation away from this space is an experience of well-being and flourishing. Having once admitted that the extremities of absolute misery and absolute well-being are different, one has acknowledged the reality of a moral landscape on which one, in principle, may navigate.

I'm a fan of the concept of personal flourishing and a real moral landscape, but I'm puzzled by what you've described of his argument.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ThinkForYourself]

He provides a thought experiment he calls "the worst possible misery for everyone" to try pinning such an elusive term down. Imagine a universe in which all conscious creatures suffer the worst possible misery. ...

Doesn't Christianity already provide that with Hell?

 

[poolerboy0077]

How is misery so different from happiness? Is it just a feeling like happiness? It still sounds very subjective and psychological to me.

You honestly think there's no meaningful difference between misery and happiness?

It is certainly subjective but only in an ontological, first-person sense. If a person with tinnitus hears a ringing in his ear, that is a subjective fact about him, but it's an ontological fact, not an epistemological one. Moreover, what say you of values in science such as the fact that we value evidence and reason? What if someone crazy from the Westboro Baptist Church or elsewhere articulates their preference for confirmation bias and cares not for evidence and reason? They're free to articulate a difference of opinion to be sure, but I don't see how that presents a real challenge to science. Likewise, I don't see how people who don't think misery is something to be discouraged ought to be taken seriously.

Is he perhaps referring not so much to a state of mind, but to a state of affairs in which life is made next to impossible?

It's merely a thought experiment he uses to show how states of the world and of our brains are relevant to well-being, because well-being is not a matter of personal preference but something that is objective.

I'm a fan of the concept of personal flourishing and a real moral landscape, but I'm puzzled by what you've described of his argument.

What specifically are you puzzled about?

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

My contention is that we wouldn't want truth unless we secretly thought that the more truth we have, the happier we are.

Why should we think this? What if the more we realized truths, the more comprehensive our understanding of reality became (of ourselves, other people, the world, God or the lack of God), the more we realized how bad things really are?

It seems like we have a sort of faith-based optimism that at the end of the road of truth good things are in store. Otherwise, why would we equate truth with happiness; that is, consider truth the ultimate good?

I think this is a category error; a case can be made that truth is the highest quality from which all goods are derived. Choosing between truth and happiness is in this view would essentially be choosing between cause and effect.

Though I doubt he realized it at the time, Jack Nicholson as Col. Jessup in A Few Good Men properly summed what I believe to be truth's greatest attribute (from a human point of view) as a repugnant, fearful thing when he grated at Tom Cruise through clenched teeth, "You can't handle the truth!" I think this is true of Biblical or prescriptive (not factual) truth. The strength of Biblical truth is as metaphor, and the path to the good of greatest happiness (which in salvific terms does lie at the end of the path, not very much on it) is through what truth does to us.

I agree that we don't want truth unless it bears fruit we like, which is why it's impossible for Christian salvation (i.e., eternal salvation) to be initiated by humans. Without going into tiresome proof texting, Jesus, as God, is truth as Willie T noted. It can be shown that metaphorically, truth is Godly fire. Godly fire is also hell, and it destroys only and ever evil. Never good. Jesus told us the world will be salted with fire (truth) which is a regenerational/sanctifying act (Jn 17:19). Since discomfort is associated with being burned by Godly fire--and the end result of being burned by Godly fire can be shown (again, allegorically) to result in purification in the midst and process of destruction, the happiness associated with truth lies at the end of the road, not on it, as ValleyGal noted when she posted, "I would not really view truth as bringing happiness. For me, truth has brought much pain, humility and the need for a Saviour. The truth hurts." Indeed it does, which is why so many of us sense that hell is experienced on earth.

Truth/Godly fire is now also both sanctification and regeneration, and as Col. Jessup noted, Christianity can't handle this truth because it leads to the higher, metaphorical truth that all will be saved 'yet so as through fire', as Paul puts it...and it takes away centuries of stuffy doctrines treating the various concepts noted above as though they're doctrines applied positively to some groups of humans while negatively to others.

So I agree with the idea in the op that the more truth we have, the more we see reality for the mess it is--which explains why we need the part of truth that burns like fire--which then provides reason to want (if not the will to actually seek) truth on the basis that its effects (happinesses) appear more down the road than in the here and now.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You honestly think there's no meaningful difference between misery and happiness?

I am uncertain. Both seem to be emotional reactions to one's circumstances based on one's evaluation of those circumstances.

It is certainly subjective but only in an ontological, first-person sense. If a person with tinnitus hears a ringing in his ear, that is a subjective fact about him, but it's an ontological fact, not an epistemological one.

Yes, I suppose that is true. But is happiness truly not based on ontological facts? If one leaves the subjective, it seems that there is an ontological aspect present. For instance, let's say that one is self-actualizing by developing some natural talent. Isn't the feeling of growth and flow that one receives due to some ontological fact about oneself?

Moreover, what say you of values in science such as the fact that we value evidence and reason?

I say that these do have ontological importance to human life.

What if someone crazy from the Westboro Baptist Church or elsewhere articulates their preference for confirmation bias and cares not for evidence and reason? They're free to articulate a difference of opinion to be sure, but I don't see how that presents a real challenge to science.

I agree.

Likewise, I don't see how people who don't think misery is something to be discouraged ought to be taken seriously.

I'm just wondering in what sense it is not merely subjective and psychological. I want to agree with Sam Harris in that I do favor a theory of human flourishing, but I'm puzzled that he would think that happiness is merely subjective, and want to know why he thinks that.

What specifically are you puzzled about?

I hope that I've been a bit more clear.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[poolerboy0077]

I am uncertain. Both seem to be emotional reactions to one's circumstances based on one's evaluation of those circumstances.

They're likely to have emotional implications (e.g., I get bothered if I burn my hand on the stove) but that doesn't make misery and well-being "relative."

I'm just wondering in what sense it is not merely subjective and psychological. I want to agree with Sam Harris in that I do favor a theory of human flourishing, but I'm puzzled that he would think that happiness is merely subjective, and want to know why he thinks that.

It's ontologically subjective because well-being (not mere happiness) relates to conscious entities. In what sense would well-being matter in a universe comprising entirely of rocks?

 

[Eudaimonist]

They're likely to have emotional implications (e.g., I get bothered if I burn my hand on the stove) but that doesn't make misery and well-being "relative."

We may simply be getting caught up on terms here. It seems like you are mixing categories with "misery" and "well-being". In order to be consistent, I would pair in the following way:

hurt and well-being
misery and happiness
dysdaimonia and eudaimonia
stuntedness and flourishing

I would not pair misery and well-being, since misery to me suggests an emotional state, whereas well-being suggests a successful pattern of activity.

It's ontologically subjective because well-being (not mere happiness) relates to conscious entities. In what sense would well-being matter in a universe comprising entirely of rocks?

Woah! Hold on! I agree with you that rocks don't have well-being, but you've just excluded non-conscious living beings. Even though single-celled organisms presumably are not conscious entities, they may still have well-being. They have the possibility for health and harm. They can live or die.

I do have a problem with associating well-being directly with a conscious state. It should instead be associated with an activity first -- the activity in fulfillment of a living being's natural function, what may be called health, well-being, success, prosperity, flourishing, eudaimonia, or other terms. Our natural function does involve conscious processes, so our well-being in part has to do with psychology. I don't deny that. But our well-being isn't merely a non-miserable subjective state of mind. It is more than that.


eudaimonia,

Mark