One Man's Truth?

[Winstonm]

This is a quote from neo-conservative Irving Kristol:

 

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people," he says in an interview. "There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work."

 

 

The entire article discusses a possible reason for anti-Darwinism and is here: http://www.reason.com/news/show/30329.html

 

Is absolute truth only the purvey of the elite? Was the Jack Nicholson character right in A Few Good Men when he blurted, "You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!"

What say ye? Can the masses handle truth?

[luke warm]

probably we can't handle the truth, but the better (maybe) question is, should we always be told the truth?

[Winstonm]

probably we can't handle the truth, but the better (maybe) question is, should we always be told the truth?

The better question: are there people who believe themselves superior, are they right about their superiority, and regardless, do the have a right to supress truth for their concept of the greater good?

[blackshoe]

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

 

Anyone who asserts some right to control others' access to the truth is a wannabe tyrant. Such people should be hanged by the neck until dead.

[mike777]

"right to control"

 

not sure i would phrase it that way but ya

 

many religions believe a few (Pope) may speak from God to us on a very important few issues and on the other vast majority Pope(other teacher) speaks enlighted advice.....

 

Of course faithful Catholics may disagree on some "church" issues= and many of us just fall short, far short on others....

 

Of course if God is never there we look pretty silly.

[mike777]

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

 

Anyone who asserts some right to control others' access to the truth is a wannabe tyrant. Such people should be hanged by the neck until dead.

Again the selfish, soulless, Godless human gene plays God

 

It very often decides what genes live or die.......

[Codo]

of course he is right- at least with this statement.

 

When you ever worked with people of different skills, you better tell them the same thing in different ways.

 

As an example:

If I talk to people with very limited brain, I better tell them: Save your money, don´t consume it, take it to the bank.

If I talk to people who understand a little bid more, I can tell them: Save your money, make a portfolio of shares, real estates, pension fonds, etc andcare about it.The4re are times where you should prefer shares and time for real estates. You must check this carefully.

If I talk to a smart guy, I will discuss with him the pros and cons of saving.

If I talk to a financial super hero, I listen.

 

No problem at all, just normal behaviour.

 

The same is true about other areas. Not anybody can understand anything, so to prevent some truth to be understood wrong, you better tell the truth in simple words, excepting that this is not the total truth.

[helene_t]

I'm all for telling lies:

- Tell lies to your enemy.

- Pretend to appreciate awful presents.

- Don't tell the dying grandma that her grandchild was just diagnosed with some terrible disease.

- Withhold confidential information which others have provided to you, trusting you to keep it secret.

 

But if a friends asks to be told truth, in general s/he deserves to be told the truth, and in general the government should treat citizens as friends in this respect. A democracy relies on citizens being able to form opinions. To do so they need information. The government has no right to constrain the information that the people has access to to form such opinions, since the people is above the government.

 

Maybe in some cases it is acceptable that the government withholds security-related information from the public. Also, maybe it goes too far to publish all the government's communication, since there is a danger that government officials would then switch to un-official channels for their confidential communication so that the policy would backfire. But it's a dangerous path. The law must set very clear constraints to prevent abuse of concepts like "military secret". It is a major concern how such laws can be effectively enforced. Apparently the system has not been working under the present U.S. government.

 

If you have to tell lies in order to justify some policy or some moral principle, you should seriously consider the possibility that the policy or principle is wrong.

 

This argument against teaching evolution that "if you teach them that they are monkeys they will behave like monkeys" is just so sick. Consider the impact of "evolution cannot be true because if it were it would undermine our ethics". Then once the children realize that evolution is true, they might lose their belief in ethics. Completely unnecessary.

 

Young children may not be able to understand that classical physics is just approximations but that they are good enough that we can do as if it is exact. So maybe it is acceptable to teach classical mechanics as if it were exact to 10 years olds. Slightly simplified science is ok. Pseudo-science has no place in school, though.

[Gerben42]

The subject of "lies-to-children" is an interesting one. But there is a difference between "simpliciation that is inaccurate but useful for the moment" and "possibly harmful nonsense".

 

You cannot explain complex logical sequences to children. When children see candy, their mind works like this:

 

Sweet --> Eat

 

however an adult mind may think:

 

Sweet --> Calories --> Diet! --> Don't care --> Eat anyway

 

Explaining any part of this to children doesn't help. You can only try to create another path that says:

 

Sweet --> Don't eat

 

they won't care about "why" yet. Later, yes.

[Winstonm]

Should a group of elite thinkers control information flow in order to protect their concept of the common good?

 

In other words, the self-evident truth would be that everyone is not created equal, that some are superior and have the obligation to instill false beliefs for the common good?

[Al_U_Card]

The "truth" is anyman's truth. Truth is the most subjective part of reality.

 

What you "see" is what you get. Those with open eyes see what they are willing to recognize as truth and that is based upon meaning.

 

What does that particular aspect of reality mean to you? That is your truth.

[PassedOut]

If you have to tell lies in order to justify some policy or some moral principle, you should seriously consider the possibility that the policy or principle is wrong.

Very well said.

[blackshoe]

Should a group of elite thinkers control information flow in order to protect their concpt of the common good?

There is historical precedent. It's rarely worked out well, though.

[luke warm]

Should a group of elite thinkers control information flow in order to protect their concpt of the common good?

it depends, winston... for example, imagine ike having a news conference a week or two prior to D day and being asked, "we hear you plan a landing in force on the beaches of normandy.. is that true?" should ike tell the truth? that's a simple example, i know, but the principle holds (imo)... i agree with helene on this, sometimes it's better to tell people lies to protect the common good... the questions arise when the ones telling the lies aren't suited to establish that good

In other words, the self-evident truth would be that everyone is not created equal, that some are superior and have the obligation to instill false beliefs for the common good?

being created equal and remaining equal throughout life aren't the same, are they?

[hrothgar]

Remarkable that the thread has made it this long without the words "Strauss" or "Straussian" entering into the conversation.

 

It is a central theme of the article that Winston cited. The Iraq invasion is an obvious example of the Strauss's noble lie in action, as is the support that prominent right wing "intellectuals" lend to "Creation Science".

[kenberg]

Lenin would have agreed with Kristol. Some thirty years ago I saw the Tom Stoppard play Travesties. As with the narrator of the play, my memory may be faulty but I recall that in the second act the lights dim and Lenin, speaking from a darkened stage, speaks about how he envisions the future. Newspapers will be free to publish the truth. Lenin then explains what the truth will be. A chilling episode and while many aspects of the play were from Stoppard's imagination I believe that the speech was from the history books.

 

There have always been people who believe that people must be told the version of the truth that is "best" for them. It is critical that these people never be given the power to implement their views.

[Al_U_Card]

Your truth will only do you the harm that you allow it.

 

Another's truth may do you the harm that it allows him.

[barmar]

While Kristol's basic statement may be correct in some cases, I don't agree with the direction he goes from it. Essentially, the neocons have concluded that even though religion isn't really true, it's appropriate to tell the masses that it is so that they'll do what we tell them:

 

Philosophers know the truth, but must keep it hidden from the vulgar, lest it upset them. What is the hidden truth known to philosophers? That there is no God and there is no ultimate foundation for morality. As Kristol suggests, it is necessary to keep this truth from the vulgar because such knowledge would only engender despair in them and lead to social breakdown.

 

I.e. the masses are sheep, and the intellectuals are their shepherds.

 

We do this with children -- we tell them to be good so that Santa will bring presents. This is accepted because their moral senses haven't matured -- children are inherently selfish and need this type of persuasion until they've learned to make good decisions for good reasons.

 

Should grown-ups really be treated the same way? Do they have to be bribed with eternal salvation so that they'll be good?

 

Actually, it's the other way around: religion is a good way to get people to do BAD things. Could anyone imagine using Darwinism to convince someone to become a suicide bomber?

[Winstonm]

t depends, winston... for example, imagine ike having a news conference a week or two prior to D day and being asked, "we hear you plan a landing in force on the beaches of normandy.. is that true?" should ike tell the truth? that's a simple example, i know, but the principle holds

 

IMO, the principle does not hold - here, the enemy is receiving the information, as well. This is not an orchestrated lie in order to lead the masses astray. Ike could always have said, "No comment".

 

being created equal and remaining equal throughout life aren't the same, are they?

 

Depends on your definition of equal and the what equality is to remain equal - retaining equality of rights should not be based on inequality of the gene pool, should it?

[Winstonm]

Remarkable that the thread has made it this long without the words "Strauss" or "Straussian" entering into the conversation.

 

It is a central theme of the article that Winston cited.  The Iraq invasion is an obvious example of the Strauss's noble lie in action, as is the support that prominent right wing "intellectuals" lend to "Creation Science".

Yes, Leo Strauss seems to be the prevailing mind behind the neo-conservative movement - the oddity is that the implementation of these ideas has been bipartisan with little-to-no adversarial positions taken.

[kenberg]

As to things like D-Day of course Ike should lie. I trust Kristol is making a different suggestion.

 

First, children: What should American children be told about George Bush, and to make it fair, what should children in, say, 1995 be told about Bill Clinton? What should they be told about the history of our country?

My own view is that we should teach respect for the presidency. Children should be taught that sacrifices have been made for our country and that we all have a responsibility for its welfare. Questions should be encouraged and answered with reasonable honesty.

 

I was six when we bombed Hiroshima. My parents did not tell me of this, and I agree. By the Korean War, when I was eleven, I was prepared to learn and to form opinions.

 

 

To the extent that Kristol's argument was in support of not teaching evolution, I think it is seriously mistaken. Modern faith has to cope with the fact of evolution just as 500 years or so ago faith had to cope with the then newly settled (not newly suggested but newly settled) fact that the Earth is not the center of the Universe. Religious organizations have spent the last five hundred years fighting the advance of science. This resistance has accomplished nothing, and will accomplish nothing. If someone's faith is threatened by scientific advance, the solution is not the denial of science.

 

Now for adults: Either we have faith that we can be self-governing or we don't. If we do, then the basis has to be that we can pursue the truth. Not just Mr. Kristol's truth. If instead we were to have an elite deciding on the correct version of truth, I might start by banning anyone who doesn't believe in evolution from running for president. If this elite is taken from, say, the National Academy of Science, this suggestion might find a great deal of support. But I'm fine with trusting the current process. It seems to be working out.

[Winstonm]

Could anyone imagine using Darwinism to convince someone to become a suicide bomber?

 

Hopefully, we have evolved past that point.

[Winstonm]

Either we have faith that we can be self-governing or we don't. If we do, then the basis has to be that we can pursue the truth. Not just Mr. Kristol's truth. If instead we were to have an elite deciding on the correct version of truth....

 

But isn't that exactly Mr. Kristol's point? If the superior intellects "understand" that centralized power in the Presidency is the "truth", then isn't Mr. Kristol saying that it is proper to misinform the masses in order to accomplish this aim?

 

And if so, who do you trust?

[blackshoe]

And if so, who do you trust?

Fox Mulder.

[Al_U_Card]

Trust died when honesty became an out-moded concept.