Truth is convenience...

[The Voice of Time]

... not in the sense that we can lie, not in the sense that we can bend shared facts. But as a human tool, truth is always bound by natural inclinations for conveniences. So why then is not truth always spoken of with regard to convenience?

This is a problem that the Science of Needs tries to address. By imposing on all "facts" questions of how the objects for which they are about relate to the needs of people and the world. What we always want to know is what is convenient to know, so therefore truth is always a question of what it is that we should know: what is important to know.

Could we not for all eternity remain ignorant of facts if what we knew made us able to find the greatest conveniences possible? Why know the secrets of any given science unless it yields a convenience as an answer? Why know any secret unless it yields a convenience. Would it really be falsehood if it worked? I think the only real metric for truth is how dependable and optimal the knowledge is. Whether facts are right or not really does not matter if it does not have any influence on dependability and optimization, and, that the only reason why we ever want to know the facts of things, is because the world usually works in such a way that the most important knowledge: the knowledge which is of greatest convenience, that satisfies ourselves the most and is the most dependable, that knowledge equates with facts as they allow us to expect the right things at the right times...

What do you think? Could facts really matter for truth if it didn't affect the things matter to us like our satisfactions and needs for dependability?

[jackles]

yes it always better or more convienient to solve an issue in the shortest possible time.some philosophers though prefer the finding of a truth to be delayed indefinatly.

[hammock]

It seems reminiscent of pragmatism.

[The Voice of Time]

Great link hammock. And yes, I read pieces of the link, and I do see similarities, although what I'm talking about is more precise and more directly related to truth, as I use "convenience of knowing" as a metric of truthfulness, rather than the varieties described in the link. This for instance:

Thus, the truth of the idea that water is wet cannot be understood or acknowledged without also understanding what “wetness” means in concert with other objects — a wet road, a wet hand, etc.

Is a problem of ontology in general. And not really about truth itself.

[creativesoul]

... not in the sense that we can lie, not in the sense that we can bend shared facts. But as a human tool, truth is always bound by natural inclinations for conveniences. So why then is not truth always spoken of with regard to convenience?

Because truth isn't about convenience. Correspondence to fact/reality is not a human tool. Tools presuppose correspondence to fact/reality by virtue of our thinking/believing that this or that can be used for this or that. The former "this or that" refers to things that we presuppose the existence of by virtue of taking note of them(the bone, the stick, etc.) the latter "this or that" refers to what we aim to acheive by virtue of using the former. The presupposition of correspondence to fact/reality underwrites any and all notions of convenience.

[The Voice of Time]

... not in the sense that we can lie, not in the sense that we can bend shared facts. But as a human tool, truth is always bound by natural inclinations for conveniences. So why then is not truth always spoken of with regard to convenience?

Because truth isn't about convenience. Correspondence to fact/reality is not a human tool. Tools presuppose correspondence to fact/reality by virtue of our thinking/believing that this or that can be used for this or that. The former "this or that" refers to things that we presuppose the existence of by virtue of taking note of them(the bone, the stick, etc.) the latter "this or that" refers to what we aim to acheive by virtue of using the former. The presupposition of correspondence to fact/reality underwrites any and all notions of convenience.

I don't think that's a very practical way of thinking, because you must first believe that you can use the ways by which you gain access to truth, remember truth and are able to work with the truth as "utilities" before truth is possible to use consciously (we could of course live in a chaotic mental state and randomly end up using truth, but nobody who lives like that lives for long). It's a cyclical way of thinking I know but that's definitely how it is to all of us: we can say something about the truth of things by believing we can use the means of truth. So the truth is indeed maybe a presupposition, but it is none the less a tool, a kind of original tool perhaps we take for granted. Original like the rock we used to shape other rocks spawning generations of technological advances, the same way notions of truth would spawn generations of improved thinking leading up to our age and our advanced and complex philosophies and theories of science. Because we definitely use it and it's definitely used as a resouce, even a prepared resource as mental discipline is required for effective and directed thinking.

[jackles]

yeah nonlocal truth can be bent for the convenience of local reasons.

[creativesoul]

... not in the sense that we can lie, not in the sense that we can bend shared facts. But as a human tool, truth is always bound by natural inclinations for conveniences. So why then is not truth always spoken of with regard to convenience?

Because truth isn't about convenience. Correspondence to fact/reality is not a human tool. Tools presuppose correspondence to fact/reality by virtue of our thinking/believing that this or that can be used for this or that. The former "this or that" refers to things that we presuppose the existence of by virtue of taking note of them(the bone, the stick, etc.) the latter "this or that" refers to what we aim to acheive by virtue of using the former. The presupposition of correspondence to fact/reality underwrites any and all notions of convenience.

I don't think that's a very practical way of thinking, because you must first believe that you can use the ways by which you gain access to truth, remember truth and are able to work with the truth as "utilities" before truth is possible to use consciously (we could of course live in a chaotic mental state and randomly end up using truth, but nobody who lives like that lives for long). It's a cyclical way of thinking I know but that's definitely how it is to all of us: we can say something about the truth of things by believing we can use the means of truth. So the truth is indeed maybe a presupposition, but it is none the less a tool, a kind of original tool perhaps we take for granted. Original like the rock we used to shape other rocks spawning generations of technological advances, the same way notions of truth would spawn generations of improved thinking leading up to our age and our advanced and complex philosophies and theories of science. Because we definitely use it and it's definitely used as a resouce, even a prepared resource as mental discipline is required for effective and directed thinking.

Belief presupposes truth. Convenience presupposes belief. Thus, all I'm saying is that you've put the cart ahead of the horse, so to speak. Do with it what you may.

[Stuartp523]

One won't have lasting criteria for pragmatism if one hasn't objectively explored reality. For example, if one hasn't explored the nature of pain and pleasure, then one may think the pursuit of pleasure was a reasonable criterion even though consistent pleasure is a myth.