Ignoring Truths
I've often written about and hinted at men's amazing capability to ignore obvious truths. This is risky, to say the least, because "truth" is something that's not so easily defined and it exists in our minds only. Or does it? It may be more accurate to say that there is an objective truth out there in the real world, but that it's always filtered through my particular mind to form my own truth. Ultimately one's own consciousness is the only irrefutable reality, the only real truth. But to function and to survive we have to agree that there's truth outside our own perception of reality, a reality we have to navigate in order to survive, and that's true whether that reality is real or simulated.
source: Quote Master
Excuse the long introduction, but I just wanted to take all that off the table before starting today's post; from now on we operate under the assumption that there is an objective truth "out there", and that we as humans share our individual perceptions of that truth to come to some form of shared truth through conversation. It's the willful or induced ignoring of an obvious shared truth, that is affirmed by current events in the shared reality, I want to discuss here. That truth is that medicare for all is the best method available to us, to increase our general, shared sense of well-being. Medicare for all is better than any system based on private insurance in a competitive for profit marketplace. Even Joe Biden, who has said he would veto medicare for all, even if it reached his desk in the Oval Office should he become the next POTUS, accidentally argues for medicare for all, as seen in this video:
Biden Triples Down Against Medicare For All But Accidentally Argues For It
Now that we have a global pandemic, and now that 10 million Americans filed for unemployment over the past two weeks, this truth suddenly strikes home with millions of Americans. With 10 million people losing their jobs in two weeks, numbers rivaled only by the numbers during the Great Depression in the 1930s, and a majority of those having had their health insurance linked to that job, even right wing politicians are talking about the need for government to step in and make sure no one goes bankrupt or dies unnecessarily by not having access to the appropriate healthcare. The sad thing is that all truths are measured and filtered by a shared overriding truth called "the economy"; the truth about medicare for all only strikes home now that it's absence threatens the survival of that overriding truth. This has the bizarre consequence that these politicians are actually saying that it's okay to die unnecessarily from cancer or diabetes, just not from the virus that threatens their lofty position in life, or the economic "truth" that got them there.
I really don't know what more evidence is needed to convince people of the truth that capitalism has long ago passed its use for humanity's progress toward a better state of being. I guess Winston Churchill was right when he said: "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." I want to end on a lighter note though, and invite you to listen to the below linked one minute audio from one of Cheech and Chong's old albums; it's about dog shit and the willful ignoring of evidence staring you in the face, and I think it's hilarious.
Cheech and Chong- Dog Shit
Thanks so much for visiting my blog and reading my posts dear reader, I appreciate that a lot :-) If you like my content, please consider leaving a comment, upvote or resteem. I'll be back here tomorrow and sincerely hope you'll join me. Until then, keep safe, keep healthy!
Recent articles you might be interested in:
| Latest article >>>>>>>>>>> | Biden's Latest Grave Mistake |
|---|---|
| America First? Get Real... | Is This "The Event"? |
| Patriot Act, Corona-Edition | Modern Kings And Peasants |
| Our Heroes Are Dying! | Ignoramus In Chief |
Thanks for stopping by and reading. If you really liked this content, if you disagree (or if you do agree), please leave a comment. Of course, upvotes, follows, resteems are all greatly appreciated, but nothing brings me and you more growth than sharing our ideas.
In so far as truth is concerned, I take a nihilistic stance. That is to say that I don't think we would have any way of knowing that what appears to be true is indeed truth, or if there's even any reason to trust that surface level sense of appearance of truth in the first place. I've come to a similar conclusion about ethics and morality. I think none are qualified to be ethicists, to uncover some generally tenable morality, or to identify/dispense truth. Those who claim this ability are either dishonest with themselves, deluded, or do so simply to gain some advantage. It's a rather strong position, not in the sense that it's defensible, but in the sense that I make forceful assertions.
The most defensible position I've encountered in all my days is that of solipsism. I myself wonder if I've strayed to far from the honesty of admitted unknowing as I stray from the solipsist's platform and accept physicalist frameworks.
Then again I do even sometimes reject the self and mind as illusory in my heights of nihilism. I'm well convinced of physicalism, though my epistemological nihilism holds me back from full surety, as in all things. I might even go so far as to remove the 'ex' from "ex nihilo" as I soar over the mountaintops through nihilist skies.
It seems to me one of the most honest utterances one might make is "I don't know.", and even then the 'I' might be a lie or wanton misappraisal.
I'm also utterly comfortable with the paradox of the lack of truth being the only truth, which thereupon is lacking truth, and so true, etc. etc...
I get some real Gödel's incompleteness vibes from it.
Very interesting my friend :-) Thanks for the honest response. I'm glad you're aware of nihilism's core flaw, which is that to claim that "there is no truth" is a claim about truth itself. At least I believe that's what you're aiming at by saying that it's not defensible and that you only make a "strong assertion" with that statement.
However, all of that is exactly what I mean when I say nihilism just isn't useful, not at all in fact; we wouldn't have survived as a species were we all converted to solipsism. That in itself is a strong claim to make, I know. Or, I think I know. Even though I fully agree that "I don't know" may be the most honest claim about any perceived truth, we can only survive and stay sane by living in a world where we do know. Or: use the tools we have to approach truth, which has to be a shared truth, as much as possible.
That's just my two cents though, and mine alone ;-) I fully respect your perspective here and appreciate your response 1000%. Thanks so much :-)
Well I'm two cents richer for it.
Thank you for the evocative platform, though I did sort of take what you said about truth and run far with it.
Since you've just given me two cents, I'd imagine you've space in your pockets for two more from me. And don't worry, these two coins are coming out of cold storage, so I've still got yours close at hand.
"However, all of that is exactly what I mean when I say nihilism just isn't useful, not at all in fact; we wouldn't have survived as a species were we all converted to solipsism."
First off, you interestingly use nihilism as a synonym for solipsism. I will grant that they share much, in that they both deny large swaths of commonly presupposed existence. However, solipsism is predicated on a positive assertion of the existence of a specific metaphysical class, namely of one's own mind, and denies others. This is in stark contrast to the various nihilistic formulations, which ultimately rest upon a negative assertion of existence, a denial of something.
Moreover, as a long time devout acolyte of nihilism I'm well acquainted to various branches and subdivisions of the concept. I'll make no claims as to utility but simple, unqualified nihilism is often so broad as to be unwieldy. It often seems to me overkill to deny absolutely everything when it might be found more appropriate, even dare I say elegant, to deny only a particular portion of everything as context would render relevant. For this purpose we have at our disposal a veritable zoo of nihilisms; moral nihilism, ethical nihilism, epistemological nihilism, and yes metaphysical nihilism at the largest scale, just to name a few common examples.
I would now criticize your position, which is to say strive for mutual improvement, that we wouldn't survive as solipsists on a nihilistic basis. I'll start by surgical denial of freedom of choice, agency, or free will. In this comment I go into more detail about that denial's particulars and backing, if you care to look. Suffice it to say that I contend we may well have no choice but to survive. The billions of years of building impetus to survive are like a rolling tsunami and far outweigh any individual. The countless lives created, duplicated, and snuffed out have enormous effect on the situation today. They're the reason we have all our anatomical features, from arms to eyelashes, even the mysterious brain and all the behaviors that spring forth from it. Even in a paradigm that accepts free will we are deeply imbued with nigh insurmountable drives to breathe and eat and sleep and breed, as well as less direct though no more surmountable ones like curiosity or expression. Interruptions to many of those drives are pathological, and therefore often cause non-propagation of those interruptions into the future further cementing them over the eons. Through my eyes, denial of free will goes hand in hand with humility and acceptance. What aggrandizement it is to think we might override the ages, may disrupt that billions of years chain of being that will long outlast us and conceived us?
Still this doesn't require an uprooting of how we think or act. Whether or not we actually have choice and whether we act like we do or seem to can easily be unrelated. Take the philosophical zombie as an example that simply acting as though decision making is occurring is not itself evidence of decision making on a fundamental level. This loops back around to ideas of truth, and of how seeming might be unreliable.
At any rate, I don't claim to have uncovered some profound thing here. As we both admit, knowing may well be harder than we know. I just tend to go overboard and say it's impossible, spawning contradiction in the same breath. Life is full of contradiction anyway, and without truth values they're not even unsettling when considered parts of a whole.
I may have given a nickle where I meant to give a pair of pennies. Nevertheless I hope you find these ideas stimulating, appropriately challenging, and satisfying to consider.
On a less abstract and more practical note, thank you for helping me stay sane during isolation with this diverting, engaging exchange.
I respect your perspective and appreciate your response (1000^1000)%.
Don't spend that nickle all in one place ;-)
Stay safe out there!
Thanks so much my friend: I consider myself schooled and enriched after reading your responses. With this nuanced elaboration on your perspective I can only say that I think you and I think very much alike on this subject. I would add one small thing only. Yes, I agree that free will is an illusion, several studies show that we operate on "auto-pilot" almost 100% of the time anyway, and that on the occasions we think we've made a conscious choice, our brain was way ahead of us and already made the decision before we become conscious of making that decision. But I would add that this illusion is a necessary one, one we cannot ignore. The illusion is part of the baggage evolution has bestowed upon us; even if we were a "brain in a vat" we need to believe that the world we operate in is real and that we are real.
You've enriched me more than pennies, nickels and dimes could ever do, and I sincerely hope everyone reads your comments :-) Thanks for your concern about my safety; that feeling is mutual of course :-)
As an aside, have you ever listened to the discussions between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris on this matter of truth? Although I certainly do not agree with much of what these men represent, I enjoyed listening on them "battling it out" over Peterson's notion that truth is to bee seen purely in a Darwinian framework. He asserts, roughly, that something is true only if and when it's "true enough" to be conducive to our survival as a species. If you haven't, and if you're interested, here's a link to part one of that long debate: