Nietzsche on Truth and Lie (1991)
rickroderick.org
Nietzsche on Truth and Lie (1991)
1–10 of 29 posts
Re: Nietzsche on Truth and Lie (1991)
#2> In fact I think that it’s perfectly consistent to believe a wide number of things with a great deal of passion, and then believe about those beliefs that you could be wrong. I hope that’s not a further paradox, I do not think that it is. It seems to me to be perfectly consistent to believe something passionately, to believe it in a very deep way and have a belief about that belief that “Well, you know. I could be wrong.”
This is one of the lectures where Roderick discusses fallibilism which he characterizes as "strong beliefs, weakly held."
Re: Nietzsche on Truth and Lie (1991)
#3> In fact I think that it’s perfectly consistent to believe a wide number of things with a great deal of passion, and then believe about those beliefs that you could be wrong. I hope that’s not a further paradox, I do not think that it is. It seems to me to be perfectly consistent to believe something passionately, to believe it in a very deep way and have a belief about that belief that “Well, you know. I could be w…
I watched all videos a while back. Really liked them. The 'Self Under Siege' series was my faovorite. The talks on Nietzsche were great too.
Re: Nietzsche on Truth and Lie (1991)
#4> In fact I think that it’s perfectly consistent to believe a wide number of things with a great deal of passion, and then believe about those beliefs that you could be wrong. I hope that’s not a further paradox, I do not think that it is. It seems to me to be perfectly consistent to believe something passionately, to believe it in a very deep way and have a belief about that belief that “Well, you know. I could be w…
Knowing that you could be wrong, is very different to thinking it is impossible to know what is right. The latter in my opinion is the great poison of modern philosophy. It seems to be that it is often used as a way to excuse lazy reasoning and irrational behaviour. Better to pretend that truth can't be known, than earnestly seek it out, etc. The irony of course, is that people who don't think truth can be known, often act with a great deal of certainty about things they believe to be right.
Re: Nietzsche on Truth and Lie (1991)
#5> In fact I think that it’s perfectly consistent to believe a wide number of things with a great deal of passion, and then believe about those beliefs that you could be wrong. I hope that’s not a further paradox, I do not think that it is. It seems to me to be perfectly consistent to believe something passionately, to believe it in a very deep way and have a belief about that belief that “Well, you know. I could be w…
Knowing that you could be wrong, is very different to thinking it is impossible to know what is right. The latter in my opinion is the great poison of modern philosophy. It seems to be that it is often used as a way to excuse lazy reasoning and irrational behaviour. Better to pretend that truth can't be known, than earnestly seek it out, etc. The irony of course, is that people who don't think truth can be known, oft…
> The latter in my opinion is the great poison of modern philosophy.
Gettier problems are an example of the difficulties in knowing conclusively that you are right. More generally, humans are prone to cognitive error. I'm not sure its possible to have 100% justified certainty about many real world issues. This goes back to Descartes (perhaps further, my education is incomplete).
> It seems to be that it is often used as a way to excuse lazy reasoning and irrational behaviour.
I can agree with that!
> The irony of course, is that people who don't think truth can be known, often act with a great deal of certainty about things they believe to be right.
That is a tragic level of hypocrisy.
Re: Nietzsche on Truth and Lie (1991)
#6I certainly read Nietzsche differently to this author (and probably Kierkegaard too by the sound of it). I think a point both of them made was that truth can only exist within the context of an agreed upon set of axioms. If you accept that you can’t prove your axioms, then your not accepting that all beliefs about truth are equally valid, you’re only accepting that all beliefs about truth are equally capable of being proven (as in, equally not capable at all). From that perspective it’s easy to see why you might reject dogmatism.
Re: Nietzsche on Truth and Lie (1991)
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
Knowing that you could be wrong, is very different to thinking it is impossible to know what is right. The latter in my opinion is the great poison of modern philosophy. It seems to be that it is often used as a way to excuse lazy reasoning and irrational behaviour. Better to pretend that truth can't be known, than earnestly seek it out, etc. The irony of course, is that people who don't think truth can be known, oft…
> The latter in my opinion is the great poison of modern philosophy. Gettier problems are an example of the difficulties in knowing conclusively that you are right. More generally, humans are prone to cognitive error. I'm not sure its possible to have 100% justified certainty about many real world issues. This goes back to Descartes (perhaps further, my education is incomplete). > It seems to be that it is often used…
Yeah, I'm not arguing that it is easy to know the truth, but the issue I take with many modern philosophies is that they argue it is impossible to know the truth. Which to me is a self-defeating argument.
I have had plenty of interesting discussions with people at dinner-parties/gatherings that start out on the surface as being a disagreement over morality or a different political leaning, but then once you get right down to first principles they admit that actually they think it's impossible to know the truth, so what does it matter anyway? This is always so frustrating, but it's important to get to this point so that you can debate the real issue, rather than going back and forth on the surface level issues that ultimately don't address the underlying disagreement.
Re: Nietzsche on Truth and Lie (1991)
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The latter in my opinion is the great poison of modern philosophy. Gettier problems are an example of the difficulties in knowing conclusively that you are right. More generally, humans are prone to cognitive error. I'm not sure its possible to have 100% justified certainty about many real world issues. This goes back to Descartes (perhaps further, my education is incomplete). > It seems to be that it is often used…
Yeah, I'm not arguing that it is easy to know the truth, but the issue I take with many modern philosophies is that they argue it is impossible to know the truth. Which to me is a self-defeating argument. I have had plenty of interesting discussions with people at dinner-parties/gatherings that start out on the surface as being a disagreement over morality or a different political leaning, but then once you get right…
> then once you get right down to first principles they admit that actually they think it's impossible to know the truth
I've heard somewhere that one can bootstrap from this point by making contingent statements since logical consequence is something that can be known with reasonable certainty. I freely admit that I'm getting out of my depth here. I just mean that if you can find a point of agreement with your interlocutor you may be able to build from there by referring to that with your next statement and so on.
Its also the case that science has done a great job of finding a way (Popperian falsifiability) to get asymptotically close to truth in my opinion.
Re: Nietzsche on Truth and Lie (1991)
#9> In fact I think that it’s perfectly consistent to believe a wide number of things with a great deal of passion, and then believe about those beliefs that you could be wrong. I hope that’s not a further paradox, I do not think that it is. It seems to me to be perfectly consistent to believe something passionately, to believe it in a very deep way and have a belief about that belief that “Well, you know. I could be w…
"Of Course... But Maybe.": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfGjORXSARI
Re: Nietzsche on Truth and Lie (1991)
#10> In fact I think that it’s perfectly consistent to believe a wide number of things with a great deal of passion, and then believe about those beliefs that you could be wrong. I hope that’s not a further paradox, I do not think that it is. It seems to me to be perfectly consistent to believe something passionately, to believe it in a very deep way and have a belief about that belief that “Well, you know. I could be w…
Knowing that you could be wrong, is very different to thinking it is impossible to know what is right. The latter in my opinion is the great poison of modern philosophy. It seems to be that it is often used as a way to excuse lazy reasoning and irrational behaviour. Better to pretend that truth can't be known, than earnestly seek it out, etc. The irony of course, is that people who don't think truth can be known, oft…
this is ironic because that's a very stereotypical and lazy take on modern philosophy straight out of a Jordan Peterson book. If we came closer to the truth every time someone on the internet mirepresents modern or postmodern philosophy as "we can't know anything bro" we'd have ascended to some higher plane of existence by now.