What's more important about beliefs??

[jtaylor2010]

- that they are accurate



- that they are beneficial to the person who holds it

[Harbinger]

as long as i get to see memaw after i die ...

[Sebstan01]

That they are accurate. I'd rather face the truth, however hard to accept.

Although I can somewhat see the other point of view as well.

[sawoobley]

- that they are accurate
- that they are beneficial to the person who holds it

It is more important that they are accurate only if it is beneficial.

Knowing and understanding the truth is usually beneficial IMO.

[GreatOldOne]

The only important thing is whether Cthulhu approves of these beliefs.

Being true or beneficial is not required.

Humans. So arrogant.

[Athanasius90]

20th century philosophy certainly opted for the latter.

[LazardLathers]

The only important thing is whether Cthulhu approves of these beliefs.

Being true or beneficial is not required.

Humans. So arrogant.

I would love to insult you... but that would be beyond the level of your intelligence.

[SteadyWayfarer]

The only important thing is whether Cthulhu approves of these beliefs.

Being true or beneficial is not required.

Humans. So arrogant.

All praise be to the divine Cthulhu!

[TranceNRG]

- that they are accurate

- that they are beneficial to the person who holds it

This is a very good epistemic question.
Most epistemologists consider truth to be inherently valuable, and they argue for it from different perspectives. (There are many, but you can start with Hilary Kornblith)
However, there are epistemologists out there, who view knowledge and belief from a pragmatic perspective, and see usefulness as more important than truth. (Look into Stephen Stich)

In short, there's no objective answer to your question, at least from the philosophical perspective.

[SteadyWayfarer]

That they are accurate. I'd rather face the truth, however hard to accept.

Although I can somewhat see the other point of view as well.

i agree.

[MuzzieChik786]

Opie, there's an assumption in your question on whether or not a belief can be validated for accuracy.

[TranceNRG]

The question that I don't see in here yet is "What does it mean for a belief to be accurate? and why that?"
I see that most people have assumed that accurate means true.

[TheFornicator1]

I think OP mistakenly used the term accurate. I assume he is inferring some sense of 'truth' as opposed to accuracy.

There is objective truth. The value of that objective truth, though, is often subjective. Believing in a false reality may be a detriment to one individual, while having the very opposite effect on another out of something as simple as desire.

Personally, I'd prefer to be faced with truth irrespective of how beneficial it is to me. At the end of the day, I simply want to know as much about reality as I possibly can. Conversely, many people simply wish to be as happy as possible in the short period of time that they have on Earth, and ignorance often really is bliss. You cannot call this illogical as emotion is integral to the human experience.

Now, I imagine that we could find a way to measure this answer objectively. Largely, I'd assume that facing real-world truths has overwhelming benefit for humankind. However, there's no mistaking that quite often ignorance to certain truths can also be beneficial.

Would you want to know you've been cheated on? The answer from most people is yes. But there is a large contingent for whom the answer is no.

[Athanasius90]

It's interesting to speculate on what degree and in which capacity the evolved brain would care for truth (in the context of the OP), or whether mother nature herself gives a sht about it.

Food, sex, and survival--maybe. But what else? Psychology furnishes us with many and varied examples of the contrary.

[TranceNRG]

...

There is objective truth.

...

Many people who choose accuracy presume objective truth must exist.
So a question that should precede OP's question is, "Does objective truth exist?" If your answer is yes, the next question should be, "How do you know that it exists?" If you think it must exist, then the next questions is, "Why?"

[TheFornicator1]

Many people who choose accuracy presume objective truth must exist.
So a question that should precede OP's question is, "Does objective truth exist?" If your answer is yes, the next question should be, "How do you know that it exists?" If you think it must exist, then the next questions is, "Why?"

No branch of philosophy or epistemology has successfully argued that objective truth doesn't exist. All it's done is reduce the discussion to one of semantics to the point that the field itself can be argued irrelevant on a point of premise. If objective truth doesn't exist, objectivity in general doesn't exist, nor then does anything you come to associate with the term 'reality'.

It's probably the single most futile argument one can make, since it inherently renders itself false on its very premise. The very construct of language that allows the conversation to even take place has to be assumed to be an objective truth/reality, for if it were not then the conversation itself would not exist.

If you actually believe objective truth to not exist, you would not proclaim yourself to be a Muslim.

[Sebstan01]

Many people who choose accuracy presume objective truth must exist.
So a question that should precede OP's question is, "Does objective truth exist?" If your answer is yes, the next question should be, "How do you know that it exists?" If you think it must exist, then the next questions is, "Why?"

Many things can be objectively measured/calculated though. Wouldn't that fact alone make them objective in every sense of the word?
I mean, isn't 'Fresh grass is green', an objective truth (basic example but you get the sentiment)?

*Edit: Wizard above me.

[TranceNRG]

No branch of philosophy or epistemology has successfully argued that objective truth doesn't exist.

This sounds like a theistic approach to God, too. "You can't prove God doesn't exist."
I can't prove that a blue unicorn doesn't exist a few galaxies away from ours either.
My point is, just because, as you say, no one has argued against it, it doesn't mean that it must exist.

However, I must add, philosophers have and do argue against it. Whether they have been successful or not, depends on the reader I guess.

If objective truth doesn't exist, objectivity in general doesn't exist, nor then does anything you come to associate with the term 'reality'.

There are a few common truth theories:
1) The correspondence theory of truth
2) The Coherence Theory of Truth
3) The Deflationary Theory of Truth
4) The Identity Theory of Truth
5) The Revision Theory of Truth

The term "reality" is dependent on the theory of truth. For example, if you pick #1 then you assume that there's an independent objective reality "out there." Whereas if you pick the coherence theory of truth, that's not necessarily the case. In this sense, we can't speak of "reality" (whatever that may be) without first understanding truth, and whether it exists or not.

[quot]
It's probably the single most futile argument one can make, since it inherently renders itself false on its very premise. The very construct of language that allows the conversation to even take place has to be assumed to be an objective truth/reality, for if it were not then the conversation itself would not exist.[/quote]

Truth may be a social construct. Language is a social construct. Both language and truth (with a lower case t) can exist, without Truth (with a capital T).

[TranceNRG]

Many things can be objectively measured/calculated though. Wouldn't that fact alone make them objective in every sense of the word?
I mean, isn't 'Fresh grass is green', an objective truth (basic example but you get the sentiment)?

*Edit: Wizard above me.

"Fresh grass is green" corresponds to a specific reality, which you must first believe in, before you can claim "Fresh grass is green" is true.
This raises the question, "How did you come to select your reality?" "According to which justificatory principles did you justify a 'reality' for yourself?"


Look back through the history of science. How many scientific theories or facts were believed in the past which are now rejected? Did those scientists not measure or calculate before arriving at answers?

[TheFornicator1]

Trance. You've probably noticed that I don't buy into semantics all too often. It's one of the primary problems with a whole horde of philosophical meanderings.

Is it true that language exists? When you answer that question, you've finished this discussion.

What I think you're actually trying to argue against is not the existence of an objective truth, but of empiricism itself. Trouble is, no single field of epistemology stands as the be-all and end-all of knowledge and most certainly not of truth. Empiricism simply takes precedent when available. Rather than rely on a single branch of epistemology to define truth, we tend to rely a broad range of indicators.

Not a single one of those indicators tells us that language doesn't exist. Henceforth, it's absurd to say that truth doesn't exist unless you're willing to say that the existence of language is not true.

But I can only imagine that your inference of a capital 'T' in truth somehow ties back to Allah, in which case I imagine this discussion is largely an exercise in futility... INB4 deepak chopra

[TranceNRG]

Trance. You've probably noticed that I don't buy into semantics all too often. It's one of the primary problems with a whole horde of philosophical meanderings.

Is it true that language exists? When you answer that question, you've finished this discussion.

What I think you're actually trying to argue against is not the existence of an objective truth, but of empiricism itself. Trouble is, no single field of epistemology stands as the be-all and end-all of knowledge and most certainly not of truth. Empiricism simply takes precedent when available. Rather than rely on a single branch of epistemology to define truth, we tend to rely a broad range of indicators.

Not a single one of those indicators tells us that language doesn't exist. Henceforth, it's absurd to say that truth doesn't exist unless you're willing to say that the existence of language is not true.

Here are two questions:
1) Could there be a world in which language doesn't exist, but objective Truth does?
2) Did objective Truth exist in this world prior to the evolution of humans?

[TheFornicator1]

Here are two questions:
1) Could there be a world in which language doesn't exist, but objective Truth does?
2) Did objective Truth exist in this world prior to the evolution of humans?

You can't answer a question with another question.

Is it true that language exists?

[TheFornicator1]

There's a subjective caveat about almost everything when considering human existence and perception; language too is a primary example of that very subjectivity. But you cannot argue against the existence of objective truth without inherently, and probably inadvertently, agreeing that Allah is not true.

Conundrum personified.

Similar too is that subjectivity, also, would need to be classified as an objective reality. Without objective reality not a single word uttered by any of us has any real meaning. Allahu Akbar is just another illusive phrase. Muhammad just a figment of your imagination.

[TranceNRG]

You can't answer a question with another question.

Is it true that language exists?

You're not answering what I asked.
The existence of language is independent from the existence of the world. Don't you think so?

So, here are the two questions again:
1) Could there be a world in which language doesn't exist, but objective Truth does?
2) Did objective Truth exist in this world prior to the evolution of humans?

[TranceNRG]

Can objective truth exist on its own and without the benefit of language?

If you think there's a world "out there," independent of the humans, then yes. Do you?

I would think so, yes. It's only when humans impose their own meaning on an objective truth, that it changes into the subjective.

Ok. So, you agree that the existence of language is not necessary for the existence of objective Truth. Correct?

[TheFornicator1]

You're not answering what I asked.
The existence of language is independent from the existence of the world. Don't you think so?

So, here are the two questions again:
1) Could there be a world in which language doesn't exist, but objective Truth does?
2) Did objective Truth exist in this world prior to the evolution of humans?

I'm not sure what you're confused about here.

Answer the question that I first posed to you:

Is it true that language exists? If your answer is yes (which it has to be if you're being either intellectually or philosophically honest), then objective reality and truth exists. Which renders this whole discussion entirely pointless.

We're not talking about a universal truth here. The question is an objective truth.

[TranceNRG]

I'm not sure what you're confused about here.

Answer the question that I first posed to you:

Is it true that language exists? If your answer is yes (which it has to be if you're being either intellectually or philosophically honest), then objective reality and truth exists. Which renders this whole discussion entirely pointless.

Clearly, you're evading the question here.

I've asked you twice.
1) Could there be a world in which language doesn't exist, but objective Truth does?
2) Did objective Truth exist in this world prior to the evolution of humans?

In my opinion, the existence of language is independent from the existence of the world.
So, before you keep repeating your question, first, try to convince me that the existence of language is necessary for the existence of the world and objective Truth.

[TheFornicator1]

Clearly, you're evading the question here.

I've asked you twice.
1) Could there be a world in which language doesn't exist, but objective Truth does?
2) Did objective Truth exist in this world prior to the evolution of humans?

In my opinion, the existence of language is independent from the existence of the world.
So, before you keep repeating your question, first, try to convince me that the existence of language is necessary for the existence of the world and objective Truth.

I asked you the question of language before you posed any questions untoward me. How on Earth are you expectant of me to answer your questions without first answering my question prior, which was integral to the conversation?

Moreover, I never once said that the existence of language is a necessity for objective truth. I simply inferred that the truth of the existence of language is an inherent proof of the existence of objective truth. The fact that you think it's possible that we're all running in a software experiment doesn't change the fact that this conversation, and the language used to convey our messages, is actually happening.

And if you argue against that, then you are inadvertently also arguing against the existence of Allah and you're pronouncing yourself an apostate.

Is there some part of the universe that operates with life without language? It's certainly a possibility. That possibility doesn't change the objective truth about our reality, right now. It doesn't erase this message nor does it erase your experience. Objective truth exists, and language -- something that conveys that reality that we so surely rely upon -- is probably the best indicator of that fact.

Just fkking lol@the irony of some mushroom-popping philosopher writing a book and arguing against objective truth... as if their book didn't exist.

[TranceNRG]

... the truth of the existence of language is an inherent proof of the existence of objective truth.

How?
Let's see a good argument for this.

Objective truth exists, and language -- something that conveys that reality that we so surely rely upon -- is probably the best indicator of that fact.

Language is not an indicator of objective Truth. Language is an indicator of our beliefs, whatever we choose to them to be, truth or not. In short, language conveys beliefs not objective Truth. Objective Truth is independent of language.

[Sebstan01]

Objective truth exists, and language -- something that conveys that reality that we so surely rely upon -- is probably the best indicator of that fact.

I get the general gist of your point, however, just a question in regards to language being an indicator of objective truth--what about before the evolution of humans, say, during the Mesozoic Era? How would one measure objectivity then at a time where language (as we know today) did not really exist?