NationStates Jolt Archive

OMG! A serious Fiddlebottoms thread!
Yeah, well normally I keep the serious sttuff I do out of NS, but I've run into something of a wall on this issue and figured that an NSer might inspire me to take one side or the other. (Oh, and I'll put up a poll, just 'cuz)

The above useless crap and onastic, unnessecary typing out of the way, assuming that (for some reason) the two are mutually exclusive on some issue, which would you rather have? Which would you rather provide?
And, tes, the two are different questions that may have different answers.

Argument in favour of Happiness
What value does the Truth really hold? If a lie (ie religion) motivates someone to be moral and happy with their life, then why should that lie be shattered?
Instead of being concerned with all the grim parts of life, people should be allowed to dwell on fallacies because they gain nothing measurable from being aware.

Argument in favour of Truth
How can happiness be measured? Do you really know that the lie will make that person's life better, and if you can't be certain, then how can you justify lies?
By denying someone access to the Truth, you are, effectively, enslaving them to your will. They will act on what they think is real, but will instead be doing what you planned out for them to do.
Knowing this, how can you really justify taking such control over someone? In essence, who gave you the right to lie?

Well I personally value the truth in the highest regard. So I really have to side with truth.

In the whole grand scheme of things happiness would be a better value then truth but personally truth is better. Besides that if someone is hidden behind lies to remain happy. What happens when they learn the truth?

Better to stick with truth and live that way.

Truth is my happiness. Knowing is reward enough for me. Lying is immoral and unnecessary. That and it breaks the law.

It is always better to seek the truth than to seek happiness. You may keep yourself in depression so you don't forget the truth of how the world works, but you'll never keep yourself happy after someone gives you a truthful outlet.

However, it is better to lie than to tell the truth. Controlling the world around you makes the world simpler, allowing you easier access to the truth and keeping others from spoiling either your truth or your happiness.

The truth, easily. I mean, it's much more useful in the long run. Imagine someone gave you poison that tasted good and told you it was harmless. In the short term, you'd be happy because it tasted good but in the long term, you would be better off knowing that it will kill you.

I am actually rather skeptical of claims of absolute truth, though and tend to lean toward a perspectivist view, in that a lot of what we consider to be true is basically socially constructed and colored heavily by perspective (just as the idea that the earth is flat was overturned, so to might our understanding of science be in the future).

I'm not happy unless I know the truth. So, I want both.

Happiness of course. Man is mortal and the gods are indifferent (or some such).

And judging by the amount of self-delusion, almost everyone feels this way.

Argument in favour of Happiness
What value does the Truth really hold? If a lie (ie religion) motivates someone to be moral and happy with their life, then why should that lie be shattered?

Okay, since you used "i.e. religion", not "e.g. religion", I'm assuming this is, indeed, about religion. If so, then I don't really see the problem.

First of all, calling religion a "lie" doesn't really capture it well, does it? You may not think that what they believe in is "true", but it's very much their truth. (It may not be real, but that's another question).
It's not like they fell prey to some evil cult leader (well, at least I hope it's not :eek: ) brainwashing them and feeding them lies he made up and making them unable to see anything but his "truth".

I think the Santa Claus (see poll) comparison doesn't fit. A little kid who's been told that Santa brings the gifts doesn't have access to the big picture. He's not yet at the point where he will go "Wait a second, maybe somebody else put them under the tree, hmmmm". In regard to religion, I think this would only be a fitting comparison for either brainwashed cult members or very young people in a very, very religious environment. Sooner or later (probably in their early teens) they will at least see that their are other "truths" out there, and then they will be able to chose what they make their truth.


Continuing in that line of thought, this
By denying someone access to the Truth, you are, effectively, enslaving them to your will. They will act on what they think is real, but will instead be doing what you planned out for them to do.
Knowing this, how can you really justify taking such control over someone? In essence, who gave you the right to lie?
would only make sense in the rarest of circumstances - like if you were the kidnapping, brainwashing, cult leader mentioned above.
Other than that, I don't think just because "someone doesn't see the light" (of your truth) you are denying them access to the truth, much less enslaving them to your will. The truth is right there for them to see, and if you think they're too blinded to see it, you're free to keep pointing it out. Then it's their choice to make which truth they prefer.

Argument in favour of Truth
How can happiness be measured? Do you really know that the lie will make that person's life better, and if you can't be certain, then how can you justify lies?

When a good friend of mine died in an avalanche at age 27, I was at his funeral and seeing his parents standing there heart-broken was just the worst. I remember how glad I was for them that they were relatively religious (I'm in Europe, so we're not talking rabid fundamentalists by a long way), because I felt that way they would have an anchor, or something that gave them an answer to why such an unnecessary thing happened. Personally, I'm not religious at all and didn't go looking for answers, or solace, or whatever, in that direction at all. But I still think they, being religious people, were lucky to have something in their lives to tide them over those bad times, even if it was something that wasn't "true" to me.

That doesn't mean that if they had booked a Scientology class to get them over their grief, I wouldn't have been freaked out. Maybe that's the difference I see - between people who can still see the various "truths" out there and still decide to hang on to their "wrong" (from your point of view) one, and those who are too brainwased to see anything beside their own.
Again, though (and maybe inconsistently), this doesn't mean it wouldn't frustrate the hell out of me if a friend of mine was, say, a fundamentalist Christian. I would point out his "erroneous ways" 24/7 and would never be able to fathom how he couldn't see The Truth.


Shit, it's almost 5am, I hope I was making at least a little sense. And now: Good Night.


°°° Btw, if this whole thing wasn't about religion after all, just pretend I never said anything. Lalalalalalalala... °°°

I'm not happy unless I know the truth. So, I want both.
But you can't have both. This is a situation where knowing the truth will make you, at best, unhappy, and possibly even miserable. However, a lie would make you feel happy.

The truth, easily. I mean, it's much more useful in the long run. Imagine someone gave you poison that tasted good and told you it was harmless. In the short term, you'd be happy because it tasted good but in the long term, you would be better off knowing that it will kill you.
While that does demonstrate the dangerous power that lies offer (tricking someone to commit suicide), it doesn't deal with all aspects of the matter.
What if the person had already drank the poison, and it was too late to help them anyway? Would you tell them "You've got 4 hours to live" so they'd know what was coming, or say "that was nothing, you'll be fine" so they could enjoy their last few hours in relative ease and without panic?
I am actually rather skeptical of claims of absolute truth, though and tend to lean toward a perspectivist view, in that a lot of what we consider to be true is basically socially constructed and colored heavily by perspective (just as the idea that the earth is flat was overturned, so to might our understanding of science be in the future).
But, then doesn't an absence of absolute truth make happiness superior? If I lie, then I know you are happy, but if I tell the "truth", then I am only pretty sure that you actually know the Truth.

Okay, since you used "i.e. religion", not "e.g. religion", I'm assuming this is, indeed, about religion. If so, then I don't really see the problem.
Religion was just one example I had thought of, and seemed to be the one that would require the least amount of explanation and backstory.
would only make sense in the rarest of circumstances - like if you were the kidnapping, brainwashing, cult leader mentioned above.
Other than that, I don't think just because "someone doesn't see the light" (of your truth) you are denying them access to the truth, much less enslaving them to your will. The truth is right there for them to see, and if you think they're too blinded to see it, you're free to keep pointing it out. Then it's their choice to make which truth they prefer.
I was talking about any situation where you had power over a lot of people and had gathered their respect. It was based on the Ancient Greek (I think, I'm too lazy to page through my notes looking for who) idea that when someone acts on false information, they aren't responsible for their actions. That made sense to me, but I was left with the question of, Well, if they aren't responsible, who is?
And that is what led me to decision that it was the spreader of misinformation who (in essence) made the desicion for that person, and thus they are to blame for the action.
When a good friend of mine died in an avalanche at age 27, I was at his funeral and seeing his parents standing there heart-broken was just the worst. I remember how glad I was for them that they were relatively religious (I'm in Europe, so we're not talking rabid fundamentalists by a long way), because I felt that way they would have an anchor, or something that gave them an answer to why such an unnecessary thing happened. Personally, I'm not religious at all and didn't go looking for answers, or solace, or whatever, in that direction at all. But I still think they, being religious people, were lucky to have something in their lives to tide them over those bad times, even if it was something that wasn't "true" to me.
The question, then, is if you were to discover sudden and incontrovertable proof that God couldn't exist, would you reveal it? Would you show the world the Truth, or would you hide it because they are happier going to Church and praying to Deaf Ears.
°°° Btw, if this whole thing wasn't about religion after all, just pretend I never said anything. Lalalalalalalala... °°°
It wasn't really, but I think you raised some points in spite of yourself.

Neither. My opinion over anything else.

While that does demonstrate the dangerous power that lies offer (tricking someone to commit suicide), it doesn't deal with all aspects of the matter.
What if the person had already drank the poison, and it was too late to help them anyway? Would you tell them "You've got 4 hours to live" so they'd know what was coming, or say "that was nothing, you'll be fine" so they could enjoy their last few hours in relative ease and without panic?

Hmm, good point.

But, then doesn't an absence of absolute truth make happiness superior? If I lie, then I know you are happy, but if I tell the "truth", then I am only pretty sure that you actually know the Truth.

Well, I said I was skeptical of claims of absolute truth, not that I completely disbelieved in it. If there is no absolute truth, though, then neither happiness nor truth could really be called superior.

In my eyes, it's better to be told the truth, and get over with it early, then be told a lie all my life, and have the truth revealed to me at a REALLY inoportune time...

Truth in itself is valueless, neither good nor evil. It just is. Besides, there are worse things than lies. Worse than lies are rumors. At least if someone is telling you the truth or a lie, you can hold them accountable for the information. With rumor, nobody is accountable.

Truth in itself is valueless, neither good nor evil. It just is. Besides, there are worse things than lies. Worse than lies are rumors. At least if someone is telling you the truth or a lie, you can hold them accountable for the information. With rumor, nobody is accountable.

Happiness is just as valueless as truth. You just have to pick your priorities.

Unhappiness is simply a facit of not knowing/accepting the truth. If you really know the truth, and accept it, that is true happiness.

Unhappiness is simply a facit of not knowing/accepting the truth. If you really know the truth, and accept it, that is true happiness.

I've had exactly the opposite experience. For me the main advantage I find in depression is knowledge and acceptance of the absolute truth. It's when I'm happy that I tend to forget how the world actually is.

Hmmm... I would presume that everyone values happiness and would like it if they were happy. But I can't see everyone valuing the truth. I think this is probably to do with humans being innately different and as such having different degrees of capability to deal with an unpleasant truth. Ultimately someone who is able to deal with an unpleasant truth will be grateful for it, maybe not at first, but ultimately.

For instance, if someone saying going to die and would panic and spend the last hours in the misery of the knowledge that they knew they were going to die then this person obviously does not able to cope with such an unpleasant truth. And as such is probably better kept in the dark.

And conversely, if that same person was actually able to come to terms with the proximity of their death then they would probably appreciate knowing the truth, and as they would be able to spend their last moments more wisely.

Unfortunately there is no perfect ultimate solution. The answer depends on the person. In the end it comes down to a persons ability to cope with unpleasant truths and your perception of how that person deals with the truth.

But as a rule of thumb I'd say you should be finding a reason not to tell the truth, rather than finding a reason to tell it. Most people are stronger than we give them credit for.

"I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."
- Isaac Newton

Happiness is just as valueless as truth. You just have to pick your priorities.

I think we would have to agree on what "value" is before it is possible to discuss this sensibly. For my definition, I would say that value is created by interaction. The value of anything is based on its relation to other things. A diamond is valuable because of its rarity. A diamond on an endless beach of diamonds is not. Truth is not defined relative to other things, so therefore it is valueless. In this case, I am meaning valueless as "outside the concept of value" and not "worthless".

As long as you believe it is the truth, what does it matter if it is a lie?

I think we would have to agree on what "value" is before it is possible to discuss this sensibly. For my definition, I would say that value is created by interaction. The value of anything is based on its relation to other things. A diamond is valuable because of its rarity. A diamond on an endless beach of diamonds is not. Truth is not defined relative to other things, so therefore it is valueless. In this case, I am meaning valueless as "outside the concept of value" and not "worthless".Well the truth can be given a price. Or is it just infomation that has a price, and whether it is true or not is irrelvant? For as we have seen over the past century infomation can valuable, even if it isn't truth, sometimes espcially so... Well I just knocked over my own argument.

However, if the truth is valueless then why does it add value to an item. A real, true, diamond is more valuable then a glass fake.

I think we would have to agree on what "value" is before it is possible to discuss this sensibly. For my definition, I would say that value is created by interaction. The value of anything is based on its relation to other things. A diamond is valuable because of its rarity. A diamond on an endless beach of diamonds is not. Truth is not defined relative to other things, so therefore it is valueless. In this case, I am meaning valueless as "outside the concept of value" and not "worthless".

With all due respect, what you just said borders on gibberish. Truth is not a thing like a plant or Estelle Getty. It's a condition wherein your perceptions of a thing like a plant or Estelle Getty happen to conform with the way they really are in a mind-independent external world. As such, its impossible to define it "relative to other things", because it is of a completely different kind. Your statement makes as much sense as saying "Justice has a silky-smooth fur coat."

As for answering the main question, I would say that truth is a necessary prerequisite for happiness. If you are happy based on a lie, then you aren't really happy: you are just decieved, foolish, or deluded and think yourself happy on that basis. Moreover, when you do know the truth, that happiness turns out to be quite ephemeral and fleeting. Real happiness, however, happens when we develop right habits of behavior that cultivate virtues. Virtuous behavior, however, requires a correct understanding of the external world; it is difficult, for example, to be temperate in the use of alcohol if you are decieved about the alcohol content of what you are drinking, but it is possible if you have a right understanding of how much you can drink and how much each of your drinks contributes to your limit.

As long as you believe it is the truth, what does it matter if it is a lie?Circumstance. If I gave you a glass of poison believing it to be healthy drink then it wouldn't matter what I believed, it would still be poison.

Whereas, if I were to say that the name for roses was actually crapweed, then this truth would be pretty inconsequential.