I think that the saying “What can be destroyed by truth, should be” is a little bit too black and white to work well in all aspects of life. For example, a clumsy and fat person who thinks he is actually rather agile, might be a lot happier with this false belief than if he were aware of the truth*. Of course it could be said that if he knew the truth, he would start to exercise and eventually become healthier, but that’s not necessarily the case.
Another example would be, that if a not-so-good-looking person thinks he looks good, he might be encouraged by that false belief to ask someone he likes for a date.
*Here when I talk about truth, I mean that how things are in the physical reality. ( whatever that may mean. )
I may be somewhat more radical than a lot of people here, but I don’t think the fat man should be deluded. It will hurt him more in the long run, because, believing himself to be agile, he’ll sign up for physically strenuous jobs and may injure himself, or try to compete in sports and be let down hard, instead of lightly like a controlled reveal could be.
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 think that the saying “What can be destroyed by truth, should be” is a little bit too black and white to work well in all aspects of life. For example, a clumsy and fat person who thinks he is actually rather agile, might be a lot happier with this false belief than if he were aware of the truth*. Of course it could be said that if he knew the truth, he would start to exercise and eventually become healthier, but that’s not necessarily the case. Another example would be, that if a not-so-good-looking person thinks he looks good, he might be encouraged by that false belief to ask someone he likes for a date.
*Here when I talk about truth, I mean that how things are in the physical reality. ( whatever that may mean. )
I may be somewhat more radical than a lot of people here, but I don’t think the fat man should be deluded. It will hurt him more in the long run, because, believing himself to be agile, he’ll sign up for physically strenuous jobs and may injure himself, or try to compete in sports and be let down hard, instead of lightly like a controlled reveal could be.
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).