Long philosophical rant ahead, first some foundation:
_________________________
Nature of the universe:
The amount of possible states the natural universe can find itself in is limited by natural laws and constants.
There are infinitely many states between two different states (like there are infinitely many real numbers between the natural numbers 1 and 2), i.e. the universe is analog.
Therefore, change (with time as a variable) from one state to another is natural if the graph of events leading to the new state (history draws a continuous graph) is continuous (if the current state can be understood in terms of cause and effect).
Supernatural events are either discontinuations (or cusps and such) in the graph of cause and effect, or such states that are impossible to acquire within the limitations set by natural laws and constants.
The natural universe is therefore a subset of the supernatural (and both are real/analog sets).
The possible states a supernatural universe can find itself in is unlimited.
_______________________________
Truth:
There is not always (if ever?) an objective, absolute truth.
Facts (which may be seen as absolutes) are only true within their definitions, i.e. a headline that proclaims 200 dead in plane accident requires definitions of what constitutes a person, an accident is, an airplane is and death is.
The meaning of definitions vary between people, some definitions have greater dispersion (e.g. many abstract things as good/right) or less tolerance for ambiguity (several definitions exist close to one another).
Sufficient/satisfying truths (and facts) are achieved when the rigidity and detail of the definitions are increased until there is only left an acceptable level (if any) of room for interpretation within the definitions.
Many concepts leave plenty of room for interpretation (e.g. the idea of what is good/right).
_____________________________________________
A truthful person:
1. does not provide made up/false facts
2. does not hide/leave out facts
3. does not provide pre-made cause-effect graphs to others, but allows them to draw their own according to their definitions
I see 3. as a necessity because of examples alike the following:
- - - - - - - - - - - -
A somewhat truthful person would say:
"I broke the window BECAUSE James said I should do it WHEN we spoke earlier."
(This is an attempt to provide a pre-made cause-effect relation.)
A more truthful person would say:
"I said to James: Tell me to break the window."
"James said: Break the window."
"I broke the window."
(This allows a greater freedom for the listener to form a cause-effect scenario based on their definitions.)
- - - - - - - - - - - -
3. does not always equal intentional twisting of facts, as the person providing the explanations might also believe his/her own rationalizations.
_____________________________________
Of love in relation to truth:
Love (in relation to truth) is part acceptance, fondness, respect, generally harboring of positive intent and feelings toward something.
A person surrounded by love (positive intentions and feelings from others toward that person) is more likely to tell the truth according to the above definition of truthfulness. This might be because (if we still possess the will to live) we do not wish to subject ourselves to anything that could hinder us from living (pursuing our goals) now and in the future.
Therefore, when not surrounded by love, we attempt to create positive, capable images of ourselves, change ourselves into something that others will hold in high esteem, accept, and follow 1., 2. and 3. only when it promotes or does not lower our value in the eyes of others.
________________________________________
Of selflessness:
I believe a degree of selflessness can be achieved through truth. You become an amalgam of all the interpretations that people have of you (after you have ceased to lie, explain yourself and hide possibly shameful parts of your identity).
Your steering does not longer come from the inside (identity), but the outside (reputation), you become to a greater degree a function of your environment and genes; Less of an individual agent, more of a piece in the puzzle.
___________________________________
Of God, the effect God creates in believers and if God can be replaced:
(Assumption: God is love and love promotes truth.)
Through believing in a (possibly supernatural) God (that knows us better than we do and that loves us), a believer rids him/herself of the lies they carry and become possibly free to act as selflessly as is humanly possible (selfishly since they might pursue a reward for their belief, eternal life, but this resides in the supernatural universe).
The same truthfulness can possibly be achieved without a perfect supernatural being, but I believe truth based on natural love/benefits to lead to a different society than truth from supernatural love.
I imagine that a person can be truthful if:
- They lose all hope and desire for a meaningful life through pursuing individuality (have nothing to lose, no fear)
- They get a satisfactory guarantee of no retaliatory action (confessions to priests, shrinks, anonymity)
- The accumulated love is enough to open them up
I imagine a society based on natural love (and such truth) to homogenize through those united with the greatest power (the majority) eliminating all individuals (minorities) with opposing values/viewpoints/truths.
Example:
Assumption: (Truthful society, everyone knows everything about everyone else, there are no secrets.)
70% of people are pedophiles, 30% are not and possibly find it appalling and would like to see the pedophiles suffer.
If the 30% manages to concentrate more power, they will wipe out/enslave/incarcerate the majority, but if the majority has greater power, the minority will submit/be enslaved/wiped out.
(Based on the assumption of human nature that the strongest pursue their interests)
________________________________
Conclusion:
I imagine a truthful natural society to homogenize.
A supernatural society on the other hand causes the same effect of selflessness, but possibly promotes equality despite differences, since the judge is superhuman and loves all who believe in him/her/it, therefore the believers interpret and act accordingly to what clues the supernatural being gives them.
Questions:
Do we need the supernatural to hold on to the concept of equality despite individual differences?
Do you see other possible (heterogeneous) forms for natural societies that value truth (possibility: Vast public forums with almost total guarantee for anonymity and no intellectual property [possibility to hide / hoard facts and data] )?
_________________________
Nature of the universe:
The amount of possible states the natural universe can find itself in is limited by natural laws and constants.
There are infinitely many states between two different states (like there are infinitely many real numbers between the natural numbers 1 and 2), i.e. the universe is analog.
Therefore, change (with time as a variable) from one state to another is natural if the graph of events leading to the new state (history draws a continuous graph) is continuous (if the current state can be understood in terms of cause and effect).
Supernatural events are either discontinuations (or cusps and such) in the graph of cause and effect, or such states that are impossible to acquire within the limitations set by natural laws and constants.
The natural universe is therefore a subset of the supernatural (and both are real/analog sets).
The possible states a supernatural universe can find itself in is unlimited.
_______________________________
Truth:
There is not always (if ever?) an objective, absolute truth.
Facts (which may be seen as absolutes) are only true within their definitions, i.e. a headline that proclaims 200 dead in plane accident requires definitions of what constitutes a person, an accident is, an airplane is and death is.
The meaning of definitions vary between people, some definitions have greater dispersion (e.g. many abstract things as good/right) or less tolerance for ambiguity (several definitions exist close to one another).
Sufficient/satisfying truths (and facts) are achieved when the rigidity and detail of the definitions are increased until there is only left an acceptable level (if any) of room for interpretation within the definitions.
Many concepts leave plenty of room for interpretation (e.g. the idea of what is good/right).
_____________________________________________
A truthful person:
1. does not provide made up/false facts
2. does not hide/leave out facts
3. does not provide pre-made cause-effect graphs to others, but allows them to draw their own according to their definitions
I see 3. as a necessity because of examples alike the following:
- - - - - - - - - - - -
A somewhat truthful person would say:
"I broke the window BECAUSE James said I should do it WHEN we spoke earlier."
(This is an attempt to provide a pre-made cause-effect relation.)
A more truthful person would say:
"I said to James: Tell me to break the window."
"James said: Break the window."
"I broke the window."
(This allows a greater freedom for the listener to form a cause-effect scenario based on their definitions.)
- - - - - - - - - - - -
3. does not always equal intentional twisting of facts, as the person providing the explanations might also believe his/her own rationalizations.
_____________________________________
Of love in relation to truth:
Love (in relation to truth) is part acceptance, fondness, respect, generally harboring of positive intent and feelings toward something.
A person surrounded by love (positive intentions and feelings from others toward that person) is more likely to tell the truth according to the above definition of truthfulness. This might be because (if we still possess the will to live) we do not wish to subject ourselves to anything that could hinder us from living (pursuing our goals) now and in the future.
Therefore, when not surrounded by love, we attempt to create positive, capable images of ourselves, change ourselves into something that others will hold in high esteem, accept, and follow 1., 2. and 3. only when it promotes or does not lower our value in the eyes of others.
________________________________________
Of selflessness:
I believe a degree of selflessness can be achieved through truth. You become an amalgam of all the interpretations that people have of you (after you have ceased to lie, explain yourself and hide possibly shameful parts of your identity).
Your steering does not longer come from the inside (identity), but the outside (reputation), you become to a greater degree a function of your environment and genes; Less of an individual agent, more of a piece in the puzzle.
___________________________________
Of God, the effect God creates in believers and if God can be replaced:
(Assumption: God is love and love promotes truth.)
Through believing in a (possibly supernatural) God (that knows us better than we do and that loves us), a believer rids him/herself of the lies they carry and become possibly free to act as selflessly as is humanly possible (selfishly since they might pursue a reward for their belief, eternal life, but this resides in the supernatural universe).
The same truthfulness can possibly be achieved without a perfect supernatural being, but I believe truth based on natural love/benefits to lead to a different society than truth from supernatural love.
I imagine that a person can be truthful if:
- They lose all hope and desire for a meaningful life through pursuing individuality (have nothing to lose, no fear)
- They get a satisfactory guarantee of no retaliatory action (confessions to priests, shrinks, anonymity)
- The accumulated love is enough to open them up
I imagine a society based on natural love (and such truth) to homogenize through those united with the greatest power (the majority) eliminating all individuals (minorities) with opposing values/viewpoints/truths.
Example:
Assumption: (Truthful society, everyone knows everything about everyone else, there are no secrets.)
70% of people are pedophiles, 30% are not and possibly find it appalling and would like to see the pedophiles suffer.
If the 30% manages to concentrate more power, they will wipe out/enslave/incarcerate the majority, but if the majority has greater power, the minority will submit/be enslaved/wiped out.
(Based on the assumption of human nature that the strongest pursue their interests)
________________________________
Conclusion:
I imagine a truthful natural society to homogenize.
A supernatural society on the other hand causes the same effect of selflessness, but possibly promotes equality despite differences, since the judge is superhuman and loves all who believe in him/her/it, therefore the believers interpret and act accordingly to what clues the supernatural being gives them.
Questions:
Do we need the supernatural to hold on to the concept of equality despite individual differences?
Do you see other possible (heterogeneous) forms for natural societies that value truth (possibility: Vast public forums with almost total guarantee for anonymity and no intellectual property [possibility to hide / hoard facts and data] )?
