I’m struck by the notion of directionality (this may not be the best word here) of the conveyance of “truth” here. If the harm of the fat person’s inaccurate perception or belief about his own status is negatively affecting only him (he routinely gets turned down by attractive others whom he asks on dates or he can’t walk from the sofa to the refrigerator without terrible pain), should the falseness of his perceptions be pointed out to him “for his own good”?
Doing so seems to lack a basic sense of intellectual humility. If, as has been stipulated, rationality is probabilistic (based on data/evidence/experience available to date) rather than definitive, it could be wrong (i.e., untrue).
I’m struck by the notion of directionality (this may not be the best word here) of the conveyance of “truth” here. If the harm of the fat person’s inaccurate perception or belief about his own status is negatively affecting only him (he routinely gets turned down by attractive others whom he asks on dates or he can’t walk from the sofa to the refrigerator without terrible pain), should the falseness of his perceptions be pointed out to him “for his own good”?
Doing so seems to lack a basic sense of intellectual humility. If, as has been stipulated, rationality is probabilistic (based on data/evidence/experience available to date) rather than definitive, it could be wrong (i.e., untrue).