Truth, Right, and Wrong: Are They Related?

[Gees]

iNow;

 

On ‎4‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 11:12 AM, iNow said:

I think it's less about needing a dictionary and more about needing time to get through the 74,000 word posts.

Philosophy: Why say in 5 words what can be said in 5,000!

I am not sure it is fair to blame this on Philosophy; remember, I did work in law for a very long time. Have you ever tried to read one of those User License Agreements? Written by lawyers. 

Gee

 

Tub;

 

On ‎4‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 10:48 AM, Tub said:

Isn't it obvious? If you don't know what words mean, you look them up - that's why we have dictionaries, isn't it?

I very seriously doubt that Dimreepr has a vocabulary problem; we just don't connect in our thinking and our background knowledge is very different. 

I am the one who has a vocabulary problem and often find myself talking around a word because I can't remember the word that explains it more succinctly. Ten plus years ago, I had a major attack of MS (Multiple Sclerosis) which took away more than half of my vocabulary; some rather specific cognitive skills; my vision for a few months, and when it returned I was dyslexic; my strength; and my ability to work. This was six months after my husband died of cancer, so I spent years in a fog. It took years of work, hard work, to learn to read again and restore most of my vocabulary, but I never regained all of my learning ability or cognitive skills.

I went from being a person, who could learn whatever I wanted and retain it, to a person who keeps a dictionary, thesaurus, and a note pad at my fingertips. Neurologists tell me that "pathways" were damaged. My thought is that MS got into my brain and dumped all of my carefully filed information all over the damned floor, hid entire file cabinets behind walls, and closed off entire rooms with rubble. So yes, I am a little wordy sometimes. People can learn to deal with it -- I did.

 

On ‎4‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 10:55 AM, Tub said:

Thanks, iNow. I didn't know you were fluent in Venusian sanskrit.

If you are looking for information about consciousness -- as it relates to the brain -- then iNow is one of the most, if not the most, informed members in this forum. He is very intelligent and definitely fluent in "Venusian Sanskrit". But he is a science guy through and through, so he does not study an aspect of consciousness that Science does not study.

It was information that iNow showed to Tar, who showed it to me, that helped me to understand why innocent children can not acknowledge or confront evil. The information came from a documentary about a Dr. Rebecca Something (I'll look for it) showing the development of mind in small children. It showed the progression of a child's development of the self, then the recognition that there are other selves, then finally the understanding that those other selves can have an internal intent. I had already determined that "evil" is a second person designation, so it requires an ability to recognize that second person's intent, which a young child does not possess. 

I have considered your idea that truth is the path that we take to reconnect, and I see value in it. Very young children have truth in their innocence and ignorance of worldly ideas, such as in The Emperor's New Clothes. (A child's story about an Emperor who gets swindled into buying "exceptional" cloth that is invisible, has clothes made from this cloth, and walks around naked until a child points out that he is naked.)

The innocence that we acquire in our old age is not born of ignorance, but of experience. We have walked many miles in many pairs of shoes, so when we confront something that others might call "evil", we can understand it from a first person perspective because we have Been There, Done That. 

So whether from a child's ignorance of intent, or from an older person's understanding of intent, both offer us truth and innocence.

It is nice to know that chivalry is not dead.  Are you nobility or just noble? Don't answer that -- it would be off topic.

Gee

 

Dimreepr;

 

On ‎4‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 7:41 AM, dimreepr said:

I wish you would because your verbosity doesn't give meaning it obfuscates.

You made it very clear in my thread Consciousness and Evolution that you did not like to read my too long posts. It is my thought that you are not Administration or a Moderator, and you do not even claim to be a philosopher, but claim to be a scientist, so I do not see any compulsion or requirement for you to read my threads or posts. If you do not like to read them, then don't read them.

Gee

 

[dimreepr]

9 hours ago, Gees said:

You made it very clear in my thread Consciousness and Evolution that you did not like to read my too long posts.

 

I'm sorry to hear about your affliction, I will try to be more considerate in the future.

9 hours ago, Gees said:

It is my thought that you are not Administration or a Moderator, and you do not even claim to be a philosopher, but claim to be a scientist

I don't claim to be any of these (never have), but the majority of my posts is in general philosophy (or maybe Politics or religion) but not science (although science is the reason I joined the community).     

Quote

so I do not see any compulsion or requirement for you to read my threads or posts. If you do not like to read them, then don't read them.

Well, philosophically, I'm free to do both (and challenge your thoughts).

Edited April 22, 2018 by dimreepr

[Tub]

11 hours ago, Gees said:

 

 

 

 

....... Ten plus years ago, I had a major attack of MS (Multiple Sclerosis) which took away more than half of my vocabulary; some rather specific cognitive skills; my vision for a few months, and when it returned I was dyslexic; my strength; and my ability to work. This was six months after my husband died of cancer, so I spent years in a fog. It took years of work, hard work, to learn to read again and restore most of my vocabulary, but I never regained all of my learning ability or cognitive skills.

I went from being a person, who could learn whatever I wanted and retain it, to a person who keeps a dictionary, thesaurus, and a note pad at my fingertips. Neurologists tell me that "pathways" were damaged. My thought is that MS got into my brain and dumped all of my carefully filed information all over the damned floor, hid entire file cabinets behind walls, and closed off entire rooms with rubble. So yes, I am a little wordy sometimes. People can learn to deal with it -- I did.

 

Gee

 

Brava, Gee; and Bravo to the moderator for ( temporarily? ) unlocking the thread to allow you to put your case - that really was an act of chivalry. Arise Sir Phi for All!

That idea of truth-finding being a re-connection with everything was really your idea, Gee , i just picked up on it, as i have again just now, with your suggestion that this re-connection is, in one way, a return to  innocence - that childlike innocence that has no fear of speaking truth to power, as in Hans Christian Andersen's story of  " The Emperor's New Clothes " that you mentioned. ( " Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings " indeed ).

I'm quickly folding my parachute now, Phi, so I'll finish with another bit of child's logic that's not too far off-topic, i hope: i was once doing a crossword puzzle and my little niece was sitting next to me; i filled-in the last word and said proudly " finished! ". " No you haven't ", she said, " you haven't done the black bits yet "......so, in light of the OP, what she said was true, and, even though she was wrong, she was right.

P.S. I'm not nobility, Gee, but i have often over-heard people call me a Count. Perhaps i misheard them.

 

[Lasse]

On 2018. 03. 14. at 4:40 AM, Gees said:

Johnny and Sarah learned that sometimes it is good and right to tell a lie, because the truth could hurt people. These are called "little white lies".

It is still not right to lie. It can be a good tool not to hurt if the counterpart is so sensible but most likely his/her life is already full of lies.

The white lies so far I understood are the ones which contains truth, but not the whole truth is said. I.e when you have a dinner but you do not say with who)

On 2018. 03. 14. at 4:40 AM, Gees said:

When they matured, they learned that some bad and wrong things can be good and right. Like killing people is bad, except when it isn't and you get a medal for it.

Killing people never can be good. Can be justified but can not be the best alternative.

Edited April 23, 2018 by Lasse

[Lasse]

On 2018. 03. 26. at 8:36 AM, Gees said:

snake

Question (sneaked in). And they looked for answers. The presentation of curious consciousness.

[Lasse]

Yep. Everyone has his/her interpretation. Although my recognition is one from 1/7.5 billion there is just one truth (with the right circumstances 100% perceivable)

Which most likely, because of relativity, none of us can achieve. 

Edited April 23, 2018 by Lasse

[StringJunky]

43 minutes ago, Lasse said:

Which most likely, because of relativity, none of us can achieve. 

It's nice to see Relativity mentioned again because I think this is true.  

[Gees]

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 10:04 AM, dimreepr said:

I don't claim to be any of these (never have), but the majority of my posts is in general philosophy (or maybe Politics or religion) but not science (although science is the reason I joined the community).     

I'm sorry, I thought that your title stated "scientist", but see that it is "genius". My mistake. 

I had always assumed that you earned your rep points in Science, but see that I was wrong. It appears that you mostly post in the "opinion" type of forums, which is fine, but in Philosophy "opinion" has a rather specific meaning. When you post an opinion, you need to also include some evidence, reasoning, or logic that caused you to form that opinion. That evidence, reasoning, or logic would be what another member would dispute, if they disagree with your opinion.

 

Quote

Well, philosophically, I'm free to do both (and challenge your thoughts).

Yes, challenge my thoughts. But in order to do so, you must specify which thoughts you are challenging. Complaining about my verbosity is not challenging my thoughts. It is complaining about my style of writing. Since this is not an English class, it is not an acceptable challenge -- it is just criticism, and not very constructive criticism.

Gee

[Gees]

Lasse;

 

10 hours ago, Lasse said:

It is still not right to lie. It can be a good tool not to hurt if the counterpart is so sensible but most likely his/her life is already full of lies.

Please note that "most likely his/her life is already full of lies" is an assumption. There is no reason to believe this is true.

 

Quote

The white lies so far I understood are the ones which contains truth, but not the whole truth is said. I.e when you have a dinner but you do not say with who)

That could be deception by giving a half truth. Under some circumstances it could be a white lie, under other circumstances it could be deception. White lies are lies that are designed to not cause conflict, when telling the truth or whole truth would not do any good, but might do unnecessary harm. Like if someone said, "I baked your favorite cake -- chocolate!", and I know that my favorite cake is not chocolate, but I like chocolate well enough. So I say, "I like chocolate." Diplomats and Ambassadors are experts in white lies.

 

Quote

Killing people never can be good. Can be justified but can not be the best alternative.

You are assuming that there is an alternative. This is not always the case.

Gee

 

Tub;

 

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 12:49 PM, Tub said:

Brava, Gee; and Bravo to the moderator for ( temporarily? ) unlocking the thread to allow you to put your case - that really was an act of chivalry. Arise Sir Phi for All!

Phi for All was concerned about "bickering" and assumed the questions in the thread had been answered. I am happy with what I learned about, for lack of a better word, I will call them "factual truths" as they reflect our reality and experiences; and "emotional truths" as this is where right and wrong usually come in to play. We all know that emotions can corrupt truth, as Science has been fighting that battle forever, but little has been stated about when factual truths can corrupt emotional truths. I thought I could broach that idea with Religion, but Religion makes some people a little crazy, so that was a bad idea. I think that I can show how factual truth can corrupt emotional truth with law. We will see.

 

Quote

That idea of truth-finding being a re-connection with everything was really your idea, Gee , i just picked up on it, as i have again just now, with your suggestion that this re-connection is, in one way, a return to  innocence - that childlike innocence that has no fear of speaking truth to power, as in Hans Christian Andersen's story of  " The Emperor's New Clothes " that you mentioned. ( " Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings " indeed ).

Well, I didn't have the idea until I read your post. Reading your thoughts was stimulating and opened new areas of thought for me.

 

Quote

I'm quickly folding my parachute now, Phi, so I'll finish with another bit of child's logic that's not too far off-topic, i hope: i was once doing a crossword puzzle and my little niece was sitting next to me; i filled-in the last word and said proudly " finished! ". " No you haven't ", she said, " you haven't done the black bits yet "......so, in light of the OP, what she said was true, and, even though she was wrong, she was right.

This is a right/wrong circumstance that is not related to emotion. I don't see this right/wrong issue as being a problem like the "truth, right, and wrong" that caused this thread, as this is simply a matter of perspective and can be resolved with simple communication. The problem I saw was where factual truth corrupts emotional truth, or emotional truth corrupts factual truth.

There was a case many years ago, maybe 20 years, that should show the problems that factual truths can cause for emotional truths. This case was headlined in the news for a year or so, and I am sorry to say that I don't remember the names of the people involved. There was a husband and wife with two or three young children; the wife died unexpectedly; then immediately after her death another man tried to lay claim to one of the children. We will call this second man John. John claimed that he had an affair with the wife, she became pregnant and informed him that it was his child. He wanted DNA testing to confirm his paternity, so that he could sue for custody. The husband denied John the right to DNA testing claiming that he loved the child and the child was his, which was true. The child was legally his because it was born within the bounds of marriage.

This case was hotly debated in the newspapers for a long time. I had already studied Family Law, so I was familiar with the problems that could be generated by a case like this, and I would not want to be the Judge, who had to decide it. Science has advanced enough that DNA testing is considered factual evidence and accepted in Courts. If the Judge denies John the right to testing, it could be a problem when the Judge comes up for re-election. If the Judge approves testing, a whole new bunch of potential problems arise. If the test comes up negative, it would seem like much ado about nothing, except that the Judgment which allowed testing would set a precedent which could allow for testing in other cases as well. If the test comes up positive, it makes a real mess out of everyone's lives.

John, who stole another man's wife's affections, would be rewarded for that theft with the theft of the other man's child.

The husband, who just lost his wife, would also lose the belief in his wife's faithfulness and also lose a daughter.

The siblings would lose a mother and a sister and faith in their mother's love.

The child in question would lose a mother, a father, siblings, and a home.

So sometimes truth, even factual truth, is not a good thing.

Gee

 

[Lasse]

On 2018. 04. 24. at 3:34 AM, Gees said:

Please note that "most likely his/her life is already full of lies" is an assumption.

Reality proven experience based assumtion... 

On 2018. 04. 24. at 3:34 AM, Gees said:

There is no reason to believe this is true.

There is a high probability that it is true (intuition)

https://www.ted.com/playlists/222/5_talks_on_the_truth_about_lyi

On 2018. 04. 24. at 3:34 AM, Gees said:

That could be deception by giving a half truth. Under some circumstances it could be a white lie, under other circumstances it could be deception. White lies are lies that are designed to not cause conflict, when telling the truth or whole truth would not do any good, but might do unnecessary harm. Like if someone said, "I baked your favorite cake -- chocolate!", and I know that my favorite cake is not chocolate, but I like chocolate well enough. So I say, "I like chocolate." Diplomats and Ambassadors are experts in white lies.

Good reasoning. I got the difference, thank you!

Edited April 25, 2018 by Lasse

[Lasse]

On 2018. 04. 24. at 3:34 AM, Gees said:

I know that my favorite cake is not chocolate, but I like chocolate well enough. So I say, "I like chocolate

This is actually a half truth. You say the truth but not the whole.

White lie would be more after your description something like: when your kid asks where is her favourite teddy bear, you know that the families 6 month old puppy teared it appart and you say, we might have lost it, so you can avoid conflict between the dog and the kid.

I still would say that there is a way not to lie even it is painful. Check my rep.

I think One has to understand himself at first hand, based on evidence usually, that it does not worth to lie. Around age of 17-19 the recognition should arrive

And then of course it is relative(the time of recognition) to Ones individual path in the physical reality. 

 

Edited April 26, 2018 by Lasse