• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Truth and belief in truth

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
I was reviewing Twilight of the Idols looking for an excerpt I wanted for another thread today when I re-discovered Nietzsche's discussion of the error of false causality underlying morality:
The "explanation" of agreeable general feelings: They are produced by trust in God. They are produced by the consciousness of good deeds (the so-called "good conscience" -- a physiological state which at times looks so much like good digestion that it is hard to tell them apart). They are produced by the successful termination of some enterprise (a naive fallacy: the successful termination of some enterprise does not by any means give a hypochondriac or a Pascal agreeable general feelings). They are produced by faith, charity, and hope -- the Christian virtues.

In truth, all these supposed explanations are resultant states and, as it were, translations of pleasurable or unpleasurable feelings into a false dialect: one is in a state of hope because the basic physiological feeling is once again strong and rich; one trusts in God because the feeling of fullness and strength gives a sense of rest. Morality and religion belong altogether to the psychology of error: in every single case, cause and effect are confused; or truth is confused with the effects of believing something to be true; or a state of consciousness is confused with its causes.

How pervasive is the error of confusing "truth" with the effects of "believing something to be true"? Can you think of examples of this error? How about the confusion of the "state of of consciousness" with its causes?
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
doppelgänger;900859 said:
How pervasive is the error of confusing "truth" with the effects of "believing something to be true"?

If truth does exist, our positive relationship with it is our correct belief in it and our negative relationship with truth is our incorrect belief in it. That is, what we believe to be true is either true or false.

I'd say then that more often that not we do confuse "truth" with "what we believe to be true."

Can you think of examples of this error?

Nietzsche's assumption that God does not exist.
 

Ozzie

Well-Known Member
doppelgänger;900859 said:
I was reviewing Twilight of the Idols looking for an excerpt I wanted for another thread today when I re-discovered Nietzsche's discussion of the error of false causality underlying morality:


How pervasive is the error of confusing "truth" with the effects of "believing something to be true"? Can you think of examples of this error? How about the confusion of the "state of of consciousness" with its causes?
I thought Hume had this covered. He argued all knowledge of causal relations is built from experience. So all knowledge of truth (in causal relationships) is belief.

An example would be knowing flicking a light switch causes the bulb to allume.

I don't think you could argue states of consciousness fall into the same category of mistaken identity with their causes unless you argue consciousness itself is an epiphenomenon.
 

Napoleon

Active Member
I'll never understand how can anyone take Nietzsche seriously especially considering the fact that his only refutation of the philosophy of Socrates was calling him ugly, stupid, and a homosexual. I've always believed that he made up a large portion of his philosophy in an attempt to justify his lifestyle and it's doubtful that he even believed what he was saying. Of course, we don't know what he really thought because his sister edited his work to reflect her ideology.
 

love

tri-polar optimist
I will take some of his quotes out of context

"They are produced by faith, charity and hope-- the Christian virtues.

"one is in a state of hope because the basic physiology feeling is once again strong and rich; one trusts in God because the feeling of fullness and strength gives a sense of rest."
This guy was around during Socrates' time?
It's amazing that he was so close to certain truths through an humanistic view point.
 

Ozzie

Well-Known Member
doppelgänger;900997 said:
Explain what you mean, Ozzie.
If as Nietsche suggests states of consciousness are confused with their causes leading to a psychology of error, it holds that consciousness itself is a belief held in error.

The stream of consciousness being made up of continuously arising cause-effect relationships.

Hume would say that knowledge of these cause-effect relationships is a posteriori knowledge mistakenly attributed to an a priori knowledge class.

Another way of looking at the distinction is in terms of knowledge of necessity v possibility.

If what we attribute to necessity as truth (consciousness) is actually a product of possible cause-effect relationships, skepticism about consciousness as truth cannot be avoided.

Another way of considering consciousness that does account for an inability to understand causal relations in anything other than possibility terms would be to consider consciousness an epiphenomenon where beliefs may play out (including mistaken identification of resultant sensations like Nietsche refers to).

Such a view of consciousness would not deny we experience beliefs, just that there is no need to view them as causing anything else.

I'm personally not prepared to admit consciousness is entirely epiphenomenal.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
doppelgänger;900859 said:
I was reviewing Twilight of the Idols looking for an excerpt I wanted for another thread today when I re-discovered Nietzsche's discussion of the error of false causality underlying morality:
Although I am not a big fan of Nietzsche he ain't too bad in small doses. The smaller the better, lol.

doppelgänger;900859 said:
How pervasive is the error of confusing "truth" with the effects of "believing something to be true"?
The perception of so-called "truth" is merely a value judgment at a particular time in space based on specific information available. In many ways "truth" changes as much as we ourselves do although many folks try to put padlocks on the truth and steadfastly stick to their idealized version of truth even when confronted with contrary evidence. What do you do then? Easy. You pretend the evidence away and maintain the ivory tower.

In effect I would tend to agree with Neitzsche on this one. For example we see many here on RF who quote their books and spout their interesting opinions CONFUSING those opinions with "Truth" as in the case of there being no possibility that they are in error. Their particular book CANNOT be wrong and therefore they have abandoned logic by tenaciously clinging to a text that is largely metaphorical or allegorical or simply a good old fashioned "yawn" errr... "yarn". For some reason there is a cold comfort in having something changeless in a world filled with change as it gives the believer something to cling to in a world they are not likely to be terribly adept dealing with or handling without their spiritual "crutch".

doppelgänger;900859 said:
Can you think of examples of this error?

Eye-witness accounts: Ten persons believed they saw something and yet each one sees something slightly different from the others. Forensic auditing of the event shows that many of the perceptions described are not even close to reality. So much for "first hand" accounts. If that is not a suitable answer then accept my apologies. am getting cranky, older and ice cream time is running late! *Starts acting like Scrat -- eyes darting back and forth -- while making odd mewling noises*

doppelgänger;900859 said:
How about the confusion of the "state of of consciousness" with its causes?
I have an idea but people might not like the answer, lol. It revolves around learning to separate the reality from the illusions or the mist from steam. It does take practice.

*we now return you to your regular thread*
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
If as Nietsche suggests states of consciousness are confused with their causes leading to a psychology of error, it holds that consciousness itself is a belief held in error.

The stream of consciousness being made up of continuously arising cause-effect relationships.

Hume would say that knowledge of these cause-effect relationships is a posteriori knowledge mistakenly attributed to an a priori knowledge class.

And Nietzsche says something similar elsewhere in Twilight:
The error of a false causality. Humans have always believed that they knew what a cause was; but how did we get this knowledge — or more precisely, our faith that we had this knowledge? From the realm of the famous "inner facts," of which not a single one has so far turned out to be true. We believe that we are the cause of our own will: we think that here at least we can see a cause at work. Nor did we doubt that all the antecedents of our will, its causes, were to be found in our own consciousness or in our personal "motives." Otherwise, we would not be responsible for what we choose to do. Who would deny that his thoughts have a cause, and that his own mind caused the thoughts?

Of these "inward facts" that seem to demonstrate causality, the primary and most persuasive one is that of the will as cause. The idea of consciousness ("spirit") or, later, that of the ego (the "subject") as a cause are only afterbirths: first the causality of the will was firmly accepted as proved, as a fact, and these other concepts followed from it.

But we have reservations about these concepts. Today we no longer believe any of this is true. The "inner world" is full of phantoms and illusions: the will being one of them. The will no longer moves anything, hence it does not explain anything — it merely accompanies events; it can also be completely absent. The so-called motives: another error. Merely a surface phenomenon of consciousness, something shadowing the deed that is more likely to hide the causes of our actions than to reveal them. And as for the ego ... that has become a fable, a fiction, a play on words! It has altogether ceased to think, feel, or will!

What follows from this? There are no mental causes at all. The whole of the allegedly empirical evidence for mental causes has gone out the window. That is what follows! And what a nice delusion we had perpetrated with this "empirical evidence;" we interpreted the real world as a world of causes, a world of wills, a world of spirits. The most ancient and enduring psychology was at work here: it simply interpreted everything that happened in the world as an act, as the effect of a will; the world was inhabited with a multiplicity of wills; an agent (a "subject") was slipped under the surface of events. It was out of himself that man projected his three most unquestioned "inner facts" — the will, the spirit, the ego. He even took the concept of being from the concept of the ego; he interpreted "things" as "being" in accordance with his concept of the ego as a cause. Small wonder that later he always found in things what he had already put into them. The thing itself, the concept of thing is a mere extension of the faith in the ego as cause. And even your atom, my dear materialists and physicists — how much error, how much rudimentary psychology still resides in your atom!
That last part is particularly interesting - "how much rudimentary psychology still resides in your atom!" - particularly in light of the discoveries of quantum mechanics a few decades later.
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
Although I am not a big fan of Nietzsche he ain't too bad in small doses. The smaller the better, lol.

I don't disagree. A little bit goes a long way. :yes:

The perception of so-called "truth" is merely a value judgment at a particular time in space based on specific information available. In many ways "truth" changes as much as we ourselves do although many folks try to put padlocks on the truth and steadfastly stick to their idealized version of truth even when confronted with contrary evidence. What do you do then? Easy. You pretend the evidence away and maintain the ivory tower.

That's a very astute observation, Paul. What does this do to the notion of "free will" that Christianity prizes so highly?
For some reason there is a cold comfort in having something changeless in a world filled with change as it gives the believer something to cling to in a world they are not likely to be terribly adept dealing with or handling without their spiritual "crutch".
Very interesting. So you think that clinging to "truth" is to assuage fear? Can you elaborate.

Here's more from Twilight that I think may be related to what you've written:

Friedrich Nietzsche said:
The psychological explanation: to extract something familiar from something unknown relieves, comforts, and satisfies us, besides giving us a feeling of power. With the unknown, one is confronted with danger, discomfort, and care; the first instinct is to abolish these painful states. First principle: any explanation is better than none. Because it is fundamentally just our desire to be rid of an unpleasant uncertainty, we are not very particular about how we get rid of it: the first interpretation that explains the unknown in familiar terms feels so good that one "accepts it as true." We use the feeling of pleasure ("of strength") as our criterion for truth.

A causal explanation is thus contingent on (and aroused by) a feeling of fear. The "why?" shall, if at all possible, result not in identifying the cause for its own sake, but in identifying a cause that is comforting, liberating, and relieving. A second consequence of this need is that we identify as a cause something already familiar or experienced, something already inscribed in memory. Whatever is novel or strange or never before experienced is excluded. Thus one searches not just for any explanation to serve as a cause, but for a specific and preferred type of explanation: that which has most quickly and most frequently abolished the feeling of the strange, new, and hitherto unexperienced in the past — our most habitual explanations. Result: one type of causal explanation predominates more and more, is concentrated into a system and finally emerges as dominant — that is, as simply precluding other causes and explanations. The banker immediately thinks of "business," the Christian of "sin," and the girl of her love.
Eye-witness accounts: Ten persons believed they saw something and yet each one sees something slightly different from the others. Forensic auditing of the event shows that many of the perceptions described are not even close to reality. So much for "first hand" accounts. If that is not a suitable answer then accept my apologies. am getting cranky, older and ice cream time is running late! *Starts acting like Scrat -- eyes darting back and forth -- while making odd mewling noises*

That's an excellent example. I deal with sorting through the interpretation of incomplete memories categorized as "truth" all the time. The pretends this process somehow arrives at the truth. Instead, it turns out to be Showbiz - a whole lot of empty noise that sounds like something wrapped up in a package that feels good.
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
I'll never understand how can anyone take Nietzsche seriously especially considering the fact that his only refutation of the philosophy of Socrates was calling him ugly, stupid, and a homosexual.

Ummm . . not so much: http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/twi.htm#socrates

Of course, we don't know what he really thought because his sister edited his work to reflect her ideology.

That's possibly true of Will To Power, but unlikely in my opinion for most of his other works.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
doppelgänger;901193 said:
That's a very astute observation, Paul. What does this do to the notion of "free will" that Christianity prizes so highly?
I suppose it could be argued that so-called "free will" is merely wishful thinking. For example I do believe in "free will" however, at the same time I know that I am not free to do ANYTHING that I wish to do. I guess "free will within specific constraints" doesn't sound as sexy although it is more realistic. Literally speaking, we only have a quasi free will in that we are only free to make choices from within our circle of probabilities. I cannot for example take a yacht ride out into the harbor when I want to because I do not own a 100 foot vessel. At the very least I could rent a dingy and paddle about though. Then again, I could steal a yacht and drive around till I was apprehended but that probably would not work out too well. Ok... how about "Free will on a short leash"?

doppelgänger;901193 said:
Very interesting. So you think that clinging to "truth" is to assuage fear? Can you elaborate.
Yes I do. I have repeatedly run into people over the years in a variety of situations that when confronted with reality some people simply will not accept it and will harbor their long held beliefs instead of simply accepting the new information and changing their beliefs to match reality.

I suppose it could be fear, but it could also be laziness, pride etc... who can say for sure without asking people in such a situation. I do think that fear would be a fairly common reason even if it is not a definable fear and simply an uncomfortable feeling.

doppelgänger;901193 said:
Here's more from Twilight that I think may be related to what you've written:
Thanks that was quite interesting Dopp.

doppelgänger;901193 said:
That's an excellent example. I deal with sorting through the interpretation of incomplete memories categorized as "truth" all the time. The pretends this process somehow arrives at the truth. Instead, it turns out to be Showbiz - a whole lot of empty noise that sounds like something wrapped up in a package that feels good.
As I just said to someone while mapping this out in my tiny brain, one thing I have discovered is that people do not want to hear "the truth" if the truth is at odds with their preconceptions of what "the truth" is. If what you are saying does not mesh with those often long held beliefs, then you might as well save your breath and effort. :sad:
 

Napoleon

Active Member
doppelgänger;901223 said:
Ummm . . not so much

Ummm...yes so much. There isn't a single refutation to the work of Socrates. It's merely an attempt at character assassination.
 
Top