Jayjay

I cannot know with absolute certainty the truthfulness of a belief, nor the consequences thereof. Some beliefs I hold because I'm pretty sure they are true, even though I recognize that it'd be more fun to believe otherwise (example: no afterlife, science). Then again I have other beliefs which are not necessarily true, but I feel that consequences of having those beliefs outweighs the possibility of being wrong (example: political position).

crocodile deathroll

In spite of what I would like the believe, the truth is the truth. I do not like the idea of cancer so therefore should I deny its existence?, of course not.

Some people like to believe they are not animals in the biological sense. I guess they also believe they can swim like Ian Thorpe and sing like Tom Jones.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

Some of the people trapped in 'the matrix' did wish to know the truth, because--even though the 'real' world was horrible, only by knowing that it was the real world, could they work to change it. Only by knowing the truth--every last unpleasant bit of it--could they begin working to create a real world which was not horrible.

As for a Mormon vs. a Nazi President, wouldn't it be 'the truth' that a Nazi President would be far worse than a Mormon? The truth is, a Mormon President would leave everyone with greater freedom to work within the system to counter whatever nonsense such a President might wish to enact.

Thus, voting for the Mormon would be the 'right' thing to do; the 'rational' decision given the truth of each candidate's position.

I don't see a vote for the Mormon solely as a 'pragmatic' decision.

Keith.

Mr. Sammi

seebs,

this is a very idealistic question. Life is more complex than the way you would like beliefs to be instantiated.

There are beliefs based on consequences and such an example concerns believing that spitting on people will make you more popular. These are the types of beliefs where their utility is based on the consequential act. A subjective belief whose truth is played out in life. You may wish to confirm that all beliefs are not apriorily constructed but construed from experience. I may wish to deny this and tend towards the idealogy of apriori conditioning in the natural demeanour of the human, which is ideal in constructing subjective beliefs. Again this may be of the form : 'I think most people lie', or 'all they want from me is my money'. The subjective belief may in no way be influenced by experience, but rather the truth of this subjective belief is observable in experience.

This is opposed to beliefs (ones to which I guess seebs was referring) which are constructed through/using the objective world and objective world experiences and the knowing of the external and the truth therein helps the holding of the belief. It is here your question plays its final act.


As such I must heartily vote for : none of the above.


Sammi Na Boodie (delving into the underbelly of the great human species)

Clutch

Why suppose that the two come apart? You needn't be a pragmatist to think that the truth is useful.

pug846

I think this is a fundamental and typical misunderstanding of caring about the consequences of beliefs more than there truth value.

It’s not a matter of wishing something to be true, makes it true. Whether or not I believe in cancer or not, it is still there. Someone who thinks the truth is good in and of itself would want to know that fact regardless of the consequences and I think that’s the wrong position. But knowing that cancer exists is pragmatically useful. If I deny it exists and have it myself or a loved one I know has it, I might end up not taking the necessary steps to keep it from spreading.

In most cases, knowing what is true is useful. However, as others and I have pointed out, there seems to be rather clear cases in which it is more useful not to know the truth.

pug846

We aren't "supposing it." Several examples have been given to show that there is a divergence in some situations between the usefulness of a false belief.

pug846

Keith said:

But why would anyone just want to know the truth for the sake of knowing the truth? Why should we want to know the truth for the sake of knowing the truth?

And why would you want to work to create a real world which was not horrible when the fake world you were living in was fine to begin with? Why cause so much misery over such a large period of time just to get back to where everyone was in the matrix? What if you knew society “in the real world” could never be as good as it was in the matrix?

Keith Russell

pug asked:
What if you knew society “in the real world” could never be as good as it was in the matrix?

I don't see how such knowledge could possibly be obtained.

(The 'matrix' isn't really good, because the matrix isn't really real...)

Keith.

Clutch

pug, quite right -- I did not make my thinking at all explicit. Anyhow, my point is simply that the reasons for aiming at believing truths, even when "local" unhappy consequences result, can certainly involve an interest in further consequences.

The truth hurts, as Lt. Frank Dreben says. Oh, not as much as jumping on a bicycle with the seat missing... but it hurts. Still, all things considered it can be the best thing, pragmatically, independently of pragmatism about truth. Because false beliefs, however handy in isolation, can't be kept in a box.

What I have in mind is that mistakes travel in packs; from one falsehood you can infer many others, and these cannot long be insulated from your decisions or actions. I take the question to be whether in some specific case I would prefer a false but convenient belief to a true but harsh one; I think truth, because believing falsehoods has a way of ramifying impractically, whatever the local convenience might be.

Hope that's clearer; I realize my initial comment was unhelpful.