Truth or Happiness?

[packbat]

Okay, I can't sleep for wondering how people would answer this, so...

Which do you value more: truth or happiness?

Answer any way you please (though I reserve the right to delete anything obscene).

Comments

[chanlemur.livejournal.com]

In practice, though it shames me to say it, I would often prefer to persist in comfortable illusions than to dwell in truth at all costs. I think I value happiness over truth.

[feech.livejournal.com]

Opposite for me. Truth.

[packbat.livejournal.com]

Thanks for your input!

[packbat.livejournal.com]

You know, I didn't see that reading of my question. If I may ask: are you saying that you believe truth is more valuable than happiness, but that in practice you seek happiness rather than truth?

[chanlemur.livejournal.com]

Basically, yep.

[packbat.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

[packbat.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, a favorite quote of mine, that your answer made me think of:

Illusions commend themselves to us because they save us pain and allow us to enjoy pleasure instead. We must therefore accept it without complaint when they sometimes collide with a bit of reality against which they are dashed to pieces.
— Sigmund Freud

[nanakikun.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I can value one over the other ^_^
for, as I've seen, happiness without truth is a rather hollow and false beast;
while truth without happiness has little in the way of a point, making it roundish as well o_O`

Soo, I would say that if I were picking one of two things to value, I'd put my cash on the existence of value. That way, if I have neither Truth nor Happiness, I can at least evaluate my state function ^^;

[packbat.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I can value one over the other ^_^
for, as I've seen, happiness without truth is a rather hollow and false beast;
while truth without happiness has little in the way of a point, making it roundish as well o_O`

Ah, so you hold no ideological preference. Just out of curiosity: any practical preference? That is to say, do you tend to seek one to the sacrifice of the other?

[nanakikun.livejournal.com]

I do not know; it depends on the situation ^_^
For example, if I had created a complicated web of lies and half-truths to support some kind of fiction that caused happiness, I'd be loath to knock it down for sake of the work and striving it took to create such a complex thing. ^_^
But, on the other hand, if someone asked me a direct question about one thing or another, I'd be loath to break my code of honor and keep up a mass of misleading insuations by adding outright falsitudes.

So practically, I'll lie a little in skipping over facts here and there of a personal nature, allowing you to insert your own lies to fill in the gaps, but I'd like to think I wouldn't deny something that was so ^_^ [Isn't there some Biblical passage that needs to be cited on here o_O?]

Example: There's some kind of alarm going on in the Chemistry building, and I'm confident that the proper way out is through the main lecture hall fire exit. I wouldn't necessarily say "Hello, I am not anyone of any import, but I recommend that you proceed in an orderly fashion through this exit," because I would likely instead take up the coloured cape of a false authority to ensure a swift and safe exodus from the hazardous zone '_'.

[bourgeoisify.livejournal.com]

Truth 100%. I'd rather be unhappy and know what's actually up than be happy and oblivious to the lie.

[packbat.livejournal.com]

Thankee!

(corrupted_wish, perhaps? *friendsback!*)

[noneuklid.livejournal.com]

What kind of happiness? Incohate bliss? Practical satisfaction? Cruel joy? Optimism?

What kind of truth? Accurate physical knowledge? Self-knowledge? Knowing the hearts of others? Groupthink?

Why know the truth if knowing it brings you no satisfaction? Why be satisfied if one knows the satisfaction is illusiory?

In other words, what's the difference?

[packbat.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I actually did intend the question to be a little vague, but I thought it was clearer than that.

I didn't really have any specific level of happiness in mind – does the it make a difference to you? As for truth – accurate physical knowledge, pretty much, but I include self-knowledge and knowledge of the hearts of others in that.

As for your third line of questions, suppose that you're happy with your ignorance, but aware that you are ignorant, and knowledge may take away (some of) your happiness. For example, if you believe something that makes you happy but you know you have no basis for believing it. Do you seek truth or not, in that kind of situation?

[noneuklid.livejournal.com]

My first line of questioning isn't about level of happiness so much as type of happiness. The sort of happiness I feel on completing a difficult task is different than the sort of happiness I feel on watching a good movie.

Likewise, the sort of happiness I feel when I learn something is different than the sort of happiness I feel when I'm comfortable with myself. Because of that, I can't honestly say that learning the truth about something would make me less happy. Likewise, I'd say that people who choose one or the other would simply be prioritizing one kind of happiness over another, unless we're excluding that sort of satisfaction from our definition of 'happiness.' (Hence all the questions.)

[packbat.livejournal.com]

Okay. That's a good point, really. I guess looking at it that way, the question's really invalid. Thanks for your answer.

[crazyinchaos.livejournal.com]

I value happiness more. Truth is all well and good, but at the end of the day, I would hope that the truth would bring me happiness. Happiness wouldn't bring me truth.

Actually ... based on that ... maybe I value truth more...

[packbat.livejournal.com]

Ah, so it's a good question. ;)

[ailado.livejournal.com]

My first thought was happiness. I'm not all that confident that truth is all that concrete a thing, in the first place. I don't believe ignorance is bliss, but for the most part I value happiness over knowledge. I've spent the greater part of my life in constant analysis, trying to find that glint of awareness, but it hasn't been terribly rewarding. It only gets one so far. It's what one does with it that matters, I think, not discovery.

BTW, Have you ever heard of pancritical rationalism?

[packbat.livejournal.com]

Hm, interesting.

No, I haven't heard of it. What is it?

[ailado.livejournal.com]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancritical_rationalism

too lazy for html. but there you go.

[packbat.livejournal.com]

Interesting! I'd heard of Popper, but I wasn't aware of much of the corpus of theories developing after his work.

Truth

[explodingbat.livejournal.com]

Much as I'm a fan of Pascal and his wager, seeking only happiness implies solipsism, which is far too dangerously maladaptive in my book.

Re: Truth

[packbat.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

So happiness by default, I suppose.

[the-zaniak.livejournal.com]

I'm not a big believer in "Truth" as a concept. 1984 knocked that out of me. I can't find the exact quote at the moment, but I'll try to hunt it down.

I *still* haven't read that!

[packbat.livejournal.com]

What about the truth that means "correspondence with reality" (http://sl4.org/wiki/TheSimpleTruth)?

Edit: Alternate link (http://yudkowsky.net/bayes/truth.html).

I blame YOU!

[the-zaniak.livejournal.com]

The connection has timed out


The server at sl4.org is taking too long to respond.





* The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in a few
moments.

* If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network
connection.

* If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure
that Firefox is permitted to access the Web.

Mua-ha-ha! No, wait, I mean, "Why blame me, I didn't do nuthin!"

[packbat.livejournal.com]

Erk! I think this page (http://yudkowsky.net/bayes/truth.html) works...

Erk indeed, good sir. Erk indeed.

[the-zaniak.livejournal.com]

Ah, yes.

I didn't enjoy that one at all. I suppose the point was to make that character who dies a real tosser, but most of that article seemed like a waste of time, it resembled far too closely arguments I've had with real life idiots.

Perhaps I went in with the wrong expectations, I was hoping for a clear definition of a couple of different versions of "truth".

The author is a bit of an odd duck - I'm guessing he was tired of the arguments too.

[packbat.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't really know how to define it - I'd say "truth" means "correspondence with reality", where reality is like he said:

Frankly, I'm not entirely sure myself where this 'reality' business comes from. I can't create my own reality in the lab, so I must not understand it yet. But occasionally I believe strongly that something is going to happen, and then something else happens instead. I need a name for whatever-it-is that determines my experimental results, so I call it 'reality'. This 'reality' is somehow separate from even my very best hypotheses. Even when I have a simple hypothesis, strongly supported by all the evidence I know, sometimes I'm still surprised. So I need different names for the thingies that determine my predictions and the thingy that determines my experimental results. I call the former thingies 'belief', and the latter thingy 'reality'.

Now, I'll admit I haven't read 1984, but I've never quite understood the objection to this idea.

It's not an objection, as such.

[the-zaniak.livejournal.com]

It's actually a really good read. I'd been recommending it to my cousin (poxy_report) for ages, and when he eventually sat down to read it, he was surprised at how compelling it is. You expect it to be dry, it's really not.

I've got that quote - it's not nearly as effective out of context, of course, but this single piece of writing has had more effect on me than anything else I've ever read. I mention that to people, and they think that I'm trying to say it will effect them the same way - I'm not, I'm just pointing out how significant it is to me, even if you disregard it off-hand.

I've changed the names to avoid spoilers.

Anything could be true. The so-called laws of Nature were nonsense. The law of gravity was nonsense. 'If I wished,' O'Brien had said, 'I could float off this floor like a soap bubble.' Winston worked it out. 'If he THINKS he floats off the floor, and if I simultaneously THINK I see him do it, then the thing happens.' Suddenly, like a lump of submerged wreckage breaking the surface of water, the thought burst into his mind: 'It doesn't really happen. We imagine it. It is hallucination.' He pushed the thought under instantly. The fallacy was obvious. It presupposed that somewhere or other, outside oneself, there was a 'real' world where 'real' things happened. But how could there be such a world? What knowledge have we of anything, save through our own minds? All happenings are in the mind. Whatever happens in all minds, truly happens.

"Truth", hey?

Not really - it's grabbing, though.

[packbat.livejournal.com]

It does sound like a mindbender. Of course, I do plan to read the book, you know. ;)

Anyway, belated thanks for the response - I'm always interested to hear what people think.