D
Deleted member 16357
Barely keeping it together
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2021
- Posts
- 695
- Reputation
- 767
But then the question is, on what level do we get rid of the search for truth? Do we search for the truly useful to believe, or do we search for the truly useful to believe useful beliefs, or do we search for the truly useful to believe useful to believe useful beliefs, etc?
The point is the principle "we shouldn't believe what is true, just what is useful" combined with the fact that we need to find what is actually, that is, truly, useful, combines into an infinite regress of more and more practical ways of thinking, by replacing the "truly" element with a "useful" element (which itself adds another "truly" element).
Another problem is that our actions are lead by what we actually believe, and not those opinions which we would think useful to believe.
For instance, if a monster was around the corner, you could recognize that it would be useful to believe there is no monster around the corner while hiding in order to not shake as much, for instance, so you can make less noise and hide more effectively, but that wouldn't be sufficient to actually act on that opinion. We would be forced to acknowledge what we believe. In order to act on a useful idea, we would need to convince ourselves somehow of it's truth. So sophistry (that is a wrong but convincing style of argumentation) could be useful for this purpose.
What do you guys think? Is the truth worth chasing just because it is true, and why if you think so? Or should we find those opinions which it is most useful to adopt and force ourselves through tricks to believe in them?
The point is the principle "we shouldn't believe what is true, just what is useful" combined with the fact that we need to find what is actually, that is, truly, useful, combines into an infinite regress of more and more practical ways of thinking, by replacing the "truly" element with a "useful" element (which itself adds another "truly" element).
Another problem is that our actions are lead by what we actually believe, and not those opinions which we would think useful to believe.
For instance, if a monster was around the corner, you could recognize that it would be useful to believe there is no monster around the corner while hiding in order to not shake as much, for instance, so you can make less noise and hide more effectively, but that wouldn't be sufficient to actually act on that opinion. We would be forced to acknowledge what we believe. In order to act on a useful idea, we would need to convince ourselves somehow of it's truth. So sophistry (that is a wrong but convincing style of argumentation) could be useful for this purpose.
What do you guys think? Is the truth worth chasing just because it is true, and why if you think so? Or should we find those opinions which it is most useful to adopt and force ourselves through tricks to believe in them?