When is truth a bad thing?
When is truth a bad thing?
On the question of truth I have been saying things that have put me in opposition with people with whom I share much. That I regret, but I cannot refrain from reiterating my position, since I cannot betray the ‘truth’ as I see it.
In science and for science truth is a prime virtue. Without truth science is the antithesis of science and is far worse than ignorance.
In the practical walks of life, truth is vital. Without truth you lose your way in the walks of life.
In poetry truth is a fault. Truthfulness and veracity are needful for poetry, but not verity.
In philosophy truth is a deceptive demon. Truthfulness and veracity are the very soul of philosophy, but not verity.
Science deals with a determinate object. There truth has its proper place.
Philosophy is concerned with absolutes and with the absolute. There truth is death.
Philosophy presents a vision, an essentially transient view of reality from an evenescent viewpoint. If it deny equal truthfulness to alternative viewpoints it thereby destroys its sole ground of meaningfulness.
Mystics dwell closest to the heart of Reality. But it is only their subjective experience that is valuable. Their articulations of that experience become hurtful when they lay claim to truth.
Plato always sang the praises of alêtheia, but alêtheia for Plato was not truth but reality: not the meretricious ‘reality’ of things we can see and touch and measure, but the reality of intelligible forms beheld in active phronêsis, as I have shown in chapters six and seven of Plato: An Interpretation.
Of all modern philosophers, it was only Nietzsche who saw all of this in the clearest light, especially in Beyond Good and Evil, “Part One: On the Prejudices of Philosophers”.
On the question of truth I have been saying things that have put me in opposition with people with whom I share much. That I regret, but I cannot refrain from reiterating my position, since I cannot betray the ‘truth’ as I see it.
In science and for science truth is a prime virtue. Without truth science is the antithesis of science and is far worse than ignorance.
In the practical walks of life, truth is vital. Without truth you lose your way in the walks of life.
In poetry truth is a fault. Truthfulness and veracity are needful for poetry, but not verity.
In philosophy truth is a deceptive demon. Truthfulness and veracity are the very soul of philosophy, but not verity.
Science deals with a determinate object. There truth has its proper place.
Philosophy is concerned with absolutes and with the absolute. There truth is death.
Philosophy presents a vision, an essentially transient view of reality from an evenescent viewpoint. If it deny equal truthfulness to alternative viewpoints it thereby destroys its sole ground of meaningfulness.
Mystics dwell closest to the heart of Reality. But it is only their subjective experience that is valuable. Their articulations of that experience become hurtful when they lay claim to truth.
Plato always sang the praises of alêtheia, but alêtheia for Plato was not truth but reality: not the meretricious ‘reality’ of things we can see and touch and measure, but the reality of intelligible forms beheld in active phronêsis, as I have shown in chapters six and seven of Plato: An Interpretation.
Of all modern philosophers, it was only Nietzsche who saw all of this in the clearest light, especially in Beyond Good and Evil, “Part One: On the Prejudices of Philosophers”.
posted by D. R. Khashaba at 12:56 AM
1 Comments:
KHASHABA:
On the question of truth I have been saying things that have put me in opposition with people with whom I share much. That I regret, but I cannot refrain from reiterating my position, since I cannot betray the ‘truth’ as I see it.
REPLY:
That's good. Thus you have a basis for philosophical discussion with your friends. And since you KNOW a lot of Plato's dialogues and about Plato's dialogues, I am trying to "tease you" into being the Plato expert at my own site.
KHASHABA:
In science and for science truth is a prime virtue. Without truth science is the antithesis of science and is far worse than ignorance.
REALLY???:
What is the TRUE answer to the cause or causes of cancer? Scientists don't have the TRUE ANSWER. They have some hints and arguably KNOWN causal agents, commonly known as carcinogenic substances. But they neither KNOW the answer, nor do they have completely TRUE answers to the questions (1) WHAT CAUSES CANCER? and (2) HOW IS CANCER CAUSED? They simply have a method for attempting to obtain TRUE answers to such questions.
And, as in ancient times, mathematical scientists don't have TRUE ANSWERS as to determinate lengths for the square root of 2 or a TRUE ANSWER to the ratio we call "pi", as far as TRUE mathematical answers are concerned.
Mathematical scientists still can't "square the circle" [ie. construct a circle which is equal in KNOWN AREA to that of the KNOWN AREA of a determinate square and/or vice versa].
So not even mathematicians have TRUE ANSWERS to some ancient simple questions. But they also know WHY they can't get TRUE answers to some of the simpler mathematical questions, which they sum up with pithy expressions such as: THE DIAGONAL IS INCOMMENSURATE WITH SIDE OF A SQUARE.
In sum there are a lot of indeterminate, indeterminable and undetermined objects in all of the "philosophical sciences", which were (1) Abstract mathematics (2) Physics and (3) Theology as far as Aristotle was concerned in THE METAPHYSICS.
KHASHABA:
In the practical walks of life, truth is vital. Without truth you lose your way in the walks of life.
In poetry truth is a fault. Truthfulness and veracity are needful for poetry, but not verity.
COMMENT:
Perhaps you ought to distinguish veracity (truth) from verity (???), which sounds to me like "absolutes" as in "eternal verities".
QUESTION:
What if you choose to make your practical living or wages, as a poet? Do you need TRUTH or not? ie. If it's TRUE that you are a bad poet, you'll probably need another line of work. But if you are an excellent poet, even a lying poet [Verily BARDS tell many a lie. ARISTOTLE], you still may make an excellent practical living. Take for another example:- The speech writers of modern politicians may make an excellent practical living by helping politicians fool modern electorates. Hence by being believable LIARS, they may make an excellent practical living.
KHASHABA:
Philosophy is concerned with absolutes and with the absolute. There truth is death.
COMMENT:
People who continually contradict themselves don't get to be known as philosophers. They are commonly known as liars, prevaricators, obscurantists, sophists or simple ignoramouses.
Truth was very important to all of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Plato constantly refers to the TRUE PHILOSOPHY. But you, Mr. Khashaba, seem to MEAN that ABSOLUTE TRUTH is equivalent to "death" or that there is no such thing as Plato's "TRUE PHILOSOPHY".
KHASHABA:
Philosophy presents a vision, an essentially transient view of reality from an evenescent viewpoint. If it deny equal truthfulness to alternative viewpoints it thereby destroys its sole ground of meaningfulness.
ON THE CONTRARY:
If my vision is that EVERY ARAB IS A WORTHLESS PHILOSOPHER, while your vision is that EVERY ARAB IS AN EXCELLENT PHILOSOPHER, how does anyone, who has actually studied the FIRST PRINCIPLE of LOGIC, allow "equal truthfulness" to those CONTRARY "visions"???
They are certainly both equally "meaningful" assertions and, as it happens, they are both equally FALSE assertions or propositions.
As it also happens the contradictions of both of those CONTRARY propositions are arguably true propositions, to wit, (1) "Some arabs are or have been good philosophers [Averroes; Avicenna; TRUE]" and (2) "Some arabs are not (or have not been) good philosophers. [TRUE]"
KHASHABA:
Mystics dwell closest to the heart of Reality. But it is only their subjective experience that is valuable. Their articulations of that experience become hurtful when they lay claim to truth.
COMMENT:
Most religious mystics become entirely unintelligible when they try to speak or write of those experiences. Their articulations are more unintelligible than hurtful. Still, they tell me that Mohammed's poetry, which became known as the Q'uran, in the original language, moved the "true believers" both "to tears" and to an almost unstoppable conquest within about 100 years of the prophet's death.
Arabic alchemy (including medicine and metallurgy) which is the true precursor of modern chemistry, came later, along with arab philosophy, or rather, philosophers like Averroes.
KHASHABA:
Plato always sang the praises of alêtheia, but alêtheia for Plato was not truth but reality: not the meretricious ‘reality’ of things we can see and touch and measure, but the reality of intelligible forms beheld in active phronêsis, as I have shown in chapters six and seven of Plato: An Interpretation.
REPLY:
You may have argued the above, Mr. Khashaba. However if Allah sent one of his angels to transport you, say, to the wailing wall at Jerusalem and, then, to the holiest place of Islam, then ordered you to preach PEACE between and among arabs, jews and christians [I use small cases because very few of these "true believers" actually practice what, respectively, Mohammed, Moses and Jesus taught them after having their respective mystical experiences], you'd have had all of (1) a TRUE MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE; (2) a PRACTICAL REVELATION of both God's existence and power and (3) A divinely inspired mission to preach PEACE among and between all the members of diverse and contrary "religious" persons.
My bet is that the only language you could speak, should that happen, would be simple GRAMMAR (in Arabic Hebrew and maybe even English) and "poetical", rather than philosophical, language.
Granted! That is an entirely WILD HYPOTHESIS, as far as I am concerned, and an ARGUED (by you) ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY, as far as you are concerned. But I do like to "gadfly" people, since I am fond of attempting to imitate Socrates, as Plato recommends.
KHASHABA:
Of all modern philosophers, it was only Nietzsche who saw all of this in the clearest light, especially in Beyond Good and Evil, “Part One: On the Prejudices of Philosophers”.
QUESTION:
And what was Nietzsche?
RHETORICAL QUESTION: Wasn't he a German philologist and/or poet, where, according to you, above, requote "truth is a fault.", where poets are concerned?
FINAL COMMENT:
Truth certainly wasn't much of a "fault" where Nietzsche was concerned. But that doesn't make Nietzsche the same sort of "philosopher" as either Plato or Socrates. It just makes him either an arguably dishonest poet or, perhaps, an "antireligious mystic". JUST "GAD-FLYING".
Kevin
Post a Comment
<< Home