Any truthful life will affect other people in various ways. If you can distinguish between truthfulness and its effects - which include specific goals of spreading truth - then something has gone horribly wrong.Avolith wrote:What exactly is ideal of spreading truth?
...*I'd say that spreading truth is something different from truth itself, and if truth is the highest value, then spreading truth at least comes in second place or later. Thereby it can't be the primary focus of the genius
It could be that a person's own ideas about truth confuses them. Or their definition of truth is so abstract that spreading it around achieves nothing or even causes harm. Some people might nod along and walk away. Others may interpret it in a way that ends up strengthening their delusions. On the other hand if truth means a specific thing and people are interested in that, they won't be truthful about all the other things. What's the point of making people reject delusions they can afford to do without?
So what is truth? Perhaps it's just a way of pointing out or asserting that something is real. But since *everything* is real, what distinguishes truth from untruth? One might say that denying the reality of everything is untruthful, but who does that? People always deny the reality of *specific* things which inconvenience them somehow. They ignore things which they don't consider very important. They grow attached to other things which they have no problem calling 'real'.
It comes down to whether the affirmation of one part of reality qualifies as "truth" even if it's contingent upon denial of or indifference towards another. If it does, isn't untruth - the denial of some part of reality which is contingent upon the affirmation of another - the same as truth? How can such a definition help people who want to lead *entirely* truthful lives?
We need a useful definition of truth. Can I come up with one? Stay tuned until next time for the exciting answer! (Hint - no.)