-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
The Value of Truth
- Thread starter Received
- Start date
Ok, that's very confusing to use that word in a philosophy discussion to mean only that.
Utilitarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility
We USE things to suit our values gain satisfaction and happiness. The last two being 'utilitarianism'. Generally the way we use things sets their value and that value is depended on how we feel about it.
Truth can only have value to us in how we utilize it toward our own satisfaction in my opinion. Because that is the only way anything has value.
Upvote
0
GrowingSmaller
Muslm Humanist
So you believe tat all the virtues fit together into a logically coherent design for man? Or maybe there are virtues (looking after the emotions, and honesty) that can conflict?
Upvote
0
Fair enough. I didn't have the philosophical connotations of utilitarianism in mind when I was simply using the term "utility". I'm simply referring to the more basic, morphological connotation of "utility": referring to usefulness or instrumentality.
That said, I think agree with your conception of using things and how this relates to values. At the same time, I ask myself the question, "why do I engage myself with contemplation?" The answer, according to a strictly particular experiential understanding, is either because I 1) value the experience in itself, or 2) value it in order to get something else. The first option would mean that I'm not valuing truth because it offers my own satisfaction, even though satisfaction is a result. That's a very fine point to pivot, I know. It would be different if I, in considering the act of contemplation of something, were to say, "I'm going to contemplate this in order to get something out of it," which to me is qualitatively different than saying, "I'm going to contemplate this because I'm attracted to contemplating it for its own sake." In both cases satisfaction may result, but in the latter case the satisfaction isn't a reason to engage in contemplation. It's this aspect of consciously or intentionally choosing something for whatever sake that determines, in the moment, whether we're valuing something for its own sake or for some other purpose (i.e., intrinsically or instrumentally). So in that sense, I don't think truth has value solely for our satisfaction, in the sense that we're using truth in order for it to consciously make us satisfied -- even though this means that, in choosing to contemplate something for the sake of doing so (i.e., engaging with its truth for its own sake) satisfaction may result afterwards.
Another way: values may involve satisfaction, but the type of way something is valued depends on whether or not we're consciously using satisfaction/pleasure as a reason to engage with this something. To gaze at something for its own sake is a different way of relating than to gaze at it because it aids you in some way.
Yet another way: if satisfaction is inherent in value, then saying we value something for direct satisfaction is redundant. It becomes a matter of whether something is satisfying-in-itself or potentially satisfying toward some other goal (i.e., instrumental).
Upvote
0
Active and passive satisfaction, I suppose, is a distinction to be had.
It depends on whether you are satisfied before or after you act to use something, or whether you can be satisfied by something by just passively observing it (I would argue you use it either way) but, regardless, I think this distinction is entirely circumstantial.
Upvote
0
Eudaimonist
I believe in life before death!
- Jan 1, 2003
- 27,482
- 2,738
- 58
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Sometimes one needs to use a screwdriver instead of a hammer. I suppose one could call that a "conflict". However, whatever skills one has with such tools themselves fall under the skillfulness of being a handyman. In that sense, there is no "conflict", because there is a skill that coordinates such sub-skills.
They say that if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. You clearly want to avoid that. They also say, wisely, that one shouldn't through the baby out with the bathwater.
So, when it comes to actualizing one's potentials, one should be careful to identify what is at their root, so as not to actualize in an inauthentic way. I believe that holding comfort over honesty is inauthentic. Intelligence (our ability to understand reality in conceptual terms and to act on that understanding) is at the root of our nature as human beings. To actualize in a way that ignores this essence is only putting a "patch" on whatever problems one has, instead of seeking authentic growth as a human being.
Perhaps I'm just being optimistic, but I do think that authentic growth is far preferable to mere comfort overall, even though the issue is sometimes posed as a "lifeboat" dilemma.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Upvote
0
I think authenticity is better than any other expression of inauthenticity because the former brings with it its own satisfaction. Even if the authentic individual butts heads with a crowd of inauthentic herd minds, and experiences disapproval and exclusion, this superficial pain is compensated for by the deeper sense of happiness that flows from authenticity. So long as the individual is at a stage of maturity where authenticity is valued, of course.
Upvote
0
Eudaimonist
I believe in life before death!
- Jan 1, 2003
- 27,482
- 2,738
- 58
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Upvote
0
Do you know if Aristotle speaks of authenticity? Or any virtue ethicists?
(BTW: Amazon.com: Virtue Ethics (Oxford Readings in Philosophy) (9780198751885): Roger Crisp, Michael Slote: Books mmmmm, delicious.)
(BTW: Amazon.com: Virtue Ethics (Oxford Readings in Philosophy) (9780198751885): Roger Crisp, Michael Slote: Books mmmmm, delicious.)
Upvote
0
Eudaimonist
I believe in life before death!
- Jan 1, 2003
- 27,482
- 2,738
- 58
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
See: Personal Destinies: A Philosophy of Ethical Individualism, by the American philosopher David Norton. He talks extensively about the virtue of authenticity.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Upvote
0
Eudaimonist
I believe in life before death!
- Jan 1, 2003
- 27,482
- 2,738
- 58
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
He seems to be more of a Leibniz fan. I don't recall him mentioning Heidegger, but my recollection is fuzzy.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Upvote
0
- Dec 20, 2003
- 14,331
- 3,032
- Country
- Germany
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Is it possible to separate truth from alternate priorities like love or life for instance. Can its valuation be made in anything but an honest frame of mind?
"Seeking truth" implies it is found by seeking rather than something we in some sense already dwell in, or which has made the effort to make itself known to us, but which we as yet may not perceive correctly.
For whom should the value of truth be considered. Value for whom or what? If the truth of what I am only makes sense in the light of a Being who can more truly than I be called the Truth then when I live in His Truth I understand the real value of truth and when I seek my own way then I do not. If personal encounter rather than propositional recognition is at the heart of what it means to live in truth then how can its value be communicated to one who has not met the Truth.
There are truthes that I have glanced at which may or may not have value in another time and place but they have no value now. If I live forever all these truthes may come to have value. If I only live 70 years then most will be irrelevant. I need eternity for my entire experience of truth to be valuable.
There are some truthes that are incomprehensible even if explained by higher beings and my mind cannot ever hope to grasp them. There are others which can be grasped and communicated and acted on. Is there more value in the understanding and communication or in the experience of truth beyond explaining or articulating? Do I need to be a poet or a worshipper to adequately describe some truthes , while for others I can be a preacher, teacher , journalist , engineer or scientist
Upvote
0
I say it has intrinsic value, because we should see and reflect on it and say "this is worth dying for, even if I can no longer have it within my sights."
However, this is only the case if truth really is truth, and not a concocted mental image of what 'truth' is supposed to be like. Truth may very well not reflect what we see empirically. It may even tend towards the opposite. Still, its truth is not diminished.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
