Truth

[airportkid]

Asked to list what defines us, what makes us who we are, I think our beliefs would comprise most of the list.  We conduct ourselves according to our beliefs.  And we believe our beliefs are correct, that's why we believe them; it'd be clinically neurotic to disbelieve what we believe.

We say all the time we want to know the truth, but the truth is:  the truth is absolutely not what we want to know.  What we want is confirmation of our belief.  Confirmation reinforces our concept of self, strengthens the integrity of who we believe we are.  If actual truth happens to coincide with that, then we say we want the truth.  But where actual truth conflicts with belief we discard the truth, because disagreement with what we believe means disagreement with our sense of who we are.  Disagreement diminishes our sense of self worth.  So we resist it.

There's no possibility any mind can possess so much knowledge everything believed is true; far more common is the gaps in our knowledge mean that much new information will conflict with our belief.  In reconciling these conflicts we virtually always take the path that strengthens us instead of the path that would seem to diminish us, and so deny the new information is true.  And we sustain the denial even as the truth imposes adverse circumstances as a consequence of the denial.

Life winds up not being much fun.

I think the path clear of the dilemma is to not incorporate specific beliefs as the bricks of our identity, but to incorporate the capacity itself to remove, repair or build new bricks as the main engine of identity.  Then as existing bricks are found unsound, it doesn't threaten the overall integrity of the structure to change them out.

But that's far easier said than done.  But I also believe, even if life isn't more fun, it's a lot less miserable.

[Alan V]

A truth is merely a generalization which applies to a broad range of specific circumstances. We all want truths because we want to act effectively in the real world. "The diner opens at 7:00 every day of the week" is a fact about a certain diner, so I can plan my visits for breakfast accordingly. Our desire for such facts is pragmatic.

For more speculative ideas, we can consider them working assumptions and test them in real-world applications. Again, this is a pragmatic approach.

However, we don't necessarily define ourselves by our collections of facts. We typically define ourselves by what makes us different from other people, including our beliefs since beliefs can vary so widely. In fact, we are often playing a different sort of word game with our beliefs than we do with facts. We are playing the social games of attracting some people, putting off others, and feeling superior -- all to get what we want from our social interactions. Beliefs are consumer items, like the shows we watch, the books we read, or the kinds of food we prefer. We are merely saying, "I enjoy these beliefs, and want to be with other people who also enjoy them." So of course we are not so open to the facts in such circumstances. That's not the game we are playing at that moment.

Most people are entirely capable of operating effectively in the world of facts while, on occasion, playing make-believe with their beliefs. The problem comes when we play social games but think we are dealing with truths instead. The test, to tell the difference, is how much we identify ourselves by what we think is true. Typically, if we really know the facts, we are less likely to make them points of identity. For instance, I take no particular pride in myself by saying that evolution is true. To me, I'm just acknowledging a fact.

The opposite of that stance is saying, "I'm a Christian" or "I'm a Muslim." In such cases, people take certain sets of ideas as social identities to gain important benefits from membership in such communities. However, not enough religious people understand the games they are playing. They have prioritized their social benefits above their intellectual honesty. So people's social needs very often prevent them from expanding their intellectual lives. They would risk losing the social benefits of group identification if they questioned their beliefs too closely.

This is why there are not enough intellectuals in the world to redeem mankind in general, IMO. Too many people remain intellectually impoverished since they can't fairly judge ideas on their own merits, aside from their own personal social considerations.

[no one]

I'm made of snips, snails, puppy dog tails, anger, hatred, RC cola, and psilocybin.

[Fireball]

I'm made of snips, snails, puppy dog tails, anger, hatred, RC cola, and psilocybin.

WHAT!? No Moon Pie?