How do you have a relationship with someone who doesn't care about truth?

a reply to: Profusion

Compromise is my best method. Usually arguments aren't reason enough to lose a friend over.

For instance, It is my opinion you should have given your opponent another chance, given that you resorted to fallacy in order to debate your opponent, by instituting the dictionary as an authority.

Appeal to Definition

originally posted by: dreamlotus1111
you are only fighting with yourself if you choose not be at peace with the fact that others have differing opinions then your own.

I wasn't fighting with that person. I was open to their ideas and I was trying to have a fair debate with them to find the truth of the matter. But, they refused my argument which was based on expert opinion while declaring themselves the winner of the debate based on nothing but their opinion.

I think it comes down to this for me (and this thread has helped me to gain this understanding):

If someone can't admit that an expert's opinion is usually superior to a "lay opinion", then I probably will try to communicate with them as little as possible.

1. That type of person can believe in anything. Just like the example I gave of the primaries in the US, someone who believes that their opinion is equal to the opinion of experts could waste untold hours on related issues that have nothing to do with reality.

2. That type of person can't be reasoned with. You can present rock-solid evidence for your case and they can keep believing whatever they want.

How do you reason with that? How do you communicate with that? If you can answer those questions, that could really help me.

originally posted by: donktheclown
a reply to: Profusion

As I tried to describe in the original post, there's no point in trying to reason with them because they ignore anything they don't want to hear IMHO.

I believe you're leaving out perspective. Yours is your own and nobody else's.

Might I suggest getting along with people by not insisting they see things the same as you. Just a thought.

Here's my thread on that issue, it was basically ignored so I would love feedback on it:

'Personal Truth' and Solopsism

originally posted by: Profusion
Let's get definitions out of the way first.

I don't think there is a set definition of "personal truth." My interpretation is the following:

Personal truth is what someone has come to believe as "true" for them or to them through individual experiences or insights.
www.answers.com...

Solipsism has a fixed definition:

a theory in philosophy that your own existence is the only thing that is real or that can be known
www.merriam-webster.com...

I'm a believer in personal truth. I think it's a very real and useful concept. The problem I have is when people state personal truth as absolute truth. (Please don't argue in this thread about whether or not absolute truth exists. The people I'm discussing here obviously do believe that absolute truth exists so whether it exists in reality is a red herring in this thread in my opinion.)

When do you know that someone is stating personal truth as absolute truth? In my experience, that usually happens when someone discusses how their personal truth is equal to absolute truth. Let's say we're discussing the topic, "Are apples red?" A color blind person (suffering from protanopia) that demanded that their personal truth was absolute truth would assert that apples aren't red because they've never seen a red apple.

I've seen the concept of personal truth as absolute truth carried to unbelievable extremes. For example, I've heard people say (paraphrasing), "I know X, Y, or Z (as absolute truth) about Jesus based on my personal walk with him." I think that's absurd but I respect the concept of personal truth so as long as that belief stays in the realm of personal truth, I've got no problem with it.

The next step that sometimes happens is where solipsism comes in. Sometimes people that have a personal truth want to claim that it's absolute truth with no evidence offered at all (or insufficient evidence is offered to prove what they're arguing). At that point, they're expunging everyone else's right to have personal truth (or to express any possible absolute truth for that matter) and that is de facto solipsism.

Why? Because by stripping everyone else of the right to have their own personal truth (while claiming your personal truth is absolute truth), you're stating literally, "your own existence is the only thing that is real or that can be known." By shutting everyone else's personal truth (and any possible absolute truth) out like that, you're exhibiting solipsism, by definition.

And generally speaking, in my experience, once we get that far, don't even try discussing absolute truth with someone acting like a solipsist, that's going nowhere.

you ask:

...a relationship with someone who doesn't care about truth?

indeed I do & have for more than 50 years, as an Adult...
been in the Subordinate position to the ruling class I once respected

the Army was the first 'truth bender' I had association with ... (Vietnam Era BS galore)

I soon discovered in life (while becoming a radical in college) as a compliant, god fearing, independent that the whole spectrum of governmental leadership (all branches of government) were primarily concerned with 'feathering' their-own-nests...
judges. magistrates, prosecutors, sheriffs.... all those who screwed me over had Karma bite-them-in-the-ass in one-way or another (by destiny/ Not by my hand at all)


does anyone relate to that obscene relationship--- or are you just in-the-beginning ? (of getting screwed by the people/leaders you put your trust in...

originally posted by: ImmortalLegend527
a reply to: Profusion


Just because you think, it is the truth does not mean your right, respect every body’s way of thinking and just accept who they are.

‘Nobody thinks alike in this world’

There is objective reasoning that is regardless of subjective views and wants and being tolerant and accept every subjective view leads to the paradox of tolerance.

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."

a reply to: LittleByLittle

I Guess so, LOL

Nevermind. This is a bit silly.

originally posted by: schuyler

Long time ago I meat a "genius" young man. He really was, and he certainly had been treated as one. I made the mistake of using the word "cool" in a sentence that indicated approval of something rather than the temperature. He responded to me that my use of the word "cool" was incorrect because it was a definition of temperature.

I think my jaw dropped at this point. So I told him,

"Words mean what people want them to mean, and if the majority of people easily understand that the word "cool" stands for something they feel positive about, that's what it means. You are being "prescriptive" meaning that you are insisting on a dictionary definition where I am being "descriptive," using the word like the majority of people in fact do use it. That doesn't mean "cool" does not have a definition related to temperature, but that's not the only definition, and it's up to you to be smart enough to know the difference."
.

I totally agree about words having the meaning people apply to them..but i have a VERY hard time believing you met anyone who corrected you when you said "cool"

I would try not to think so much in terms of "truth" and " not truth" but rather try to understand what people want to say. Often people mean different things with the same words. Language is very flexible, but I believe the truth lies beneath the words.
If the debate is about something so mundane and accountable as private messages, and the other person seems to try to suddenly change the meaning of what we all understand as private messages maybe there is something else hidden beneath. There are people who need to always be right, or are unable to admit when they make a mistake so they'll keep arguing till death no matter what. Maybe they are genuinely of other opinion, so you can simply settle it down by agreeing what is the meaning of private messages from now on between you two.

In any case, you need to understand the underlying reason that cause people to ignore an evident truth. It is blunt ignorance, it is political correctness, is a regular behavior of that person or maybe you just stepped on their nerves and they want to prove you wrong by all means?
And then you choose how to deal with them.

I would also say that always pointing the absolute truth even in insignificant matters can seem too righteous and patronizing to other people. If you find yourself involved a lot in debates like this maybe is you who need to relax a bit and let people be happy in their ignorance.

a reply to: Profusion

Profusion...

It is important for any sort of relationship, that a certain degree of trust exists between the components of that relationship. Different levels of trust are required, for different strata and descriptions of relationship.

As far as two citizens walking on the same street go, they do not need to know one another, but in order for both to go about their day without fear and confusion, they both need to trust that the other is not going to whip out a pistol and shoot the other in the kidneys. Two patrons in the same bar need to trust that the other is not about to try to knock them unconscious with a bottle later in the evening.

Friends need to trust one another well enough that either one would come to the others aid in a moment of crisis, and for anything deeper than friendship, one requires absolute trust. But can there be any trust without truth? Truthfulness and the level to which an individual engages with it, is often proportional to the amount of trust one can place in a person with a reasonable degree of certainty, that it will be proven wise to have done so.

Without trust, and therefore truthfulness, it is very hard to forge relationships of any worth.

a reply to: Profusion

What you label as "truth" is merely a version of reality according to your own unique perspective. Neither you or I know what genuine truth is because we have both been conditioned in different ways to interpret what we believe is truth.

You won't find truth in a dictionary any more than you will find it in a tabloid magazine. Dictionaries merely represent a consensus between its authors and editors about a word's origins and its meanings.

Just because there is a consensus between credible people in a given field does not make what they state truthful.

The truth is what is actually happening and no one can tell it. Versions told 'about' what happened are approximations.
'Happened' is a story. No story is true.
Prior to conceptualization lies the truth - always here in plain sight.

originally posted by: Profusion
Because by stripping everyone else of the right to have their own personal truth (while claiming your personal truth is absolute truth), you're stating literally, "your own existence is the only thing that is real or that can be known."

Personally, I have never been stripped of my right to my own personal truth. I am not sure how that happens?
I mean, even if you are tied up and your mouth duck taped, you can still retain your personal truth (even if you can't express it).

Though there are some individuals that scurry beneath semantic disputes, in order to hide their ego, (or individualized self) from interaction with another self.

Truth sometimes has many layers, like an onion.

If you are arguing over the meaning of a word, then another truth not being acknowledged here is that you did not care what the person felt or thought. What was the reason the personal messages came up between you? What did it express about your relationship with each other- the state of trust and respect you each had for each other?

The semantical debate was smoke and mirrors, a distraction from the real issue, and a way of avoiding intimacy and relation.

Yes, sometimes facing the truth is best - realize when the person you are faced with does not want to have a relationship; they do not want to have a honest exchange between entities. They are using all sorts of games to avoid it.
Walk away. That is what the person faced with your semantic debate should have done right away.

Concepts are controllers - like an artificial life force - they control the body if they are not spotted for what they are - like demons.
The concept of 'you' and 'another' - will cause a battle.
Anxiety is the result of listening to stories going on in the mind - about other times and places - the mind (full of concepts) downloads fear and anxiety into the body.

Life is this that is happening - it is always happening. But when stories consisting of 'things' appear in mind - 'things' like 'you' and 'me' and what he said and she said and I said (all stories) happen, just see that as the happening - what is happening is the truth.
What the words and symbols say is not the truth - words do not tell the truth. Words cannot bring harmony and peace - words oppose and conflict.

Here is a light hearted look at misunderstanding in relationship.

.... and never fall in love either. It complicates your life, you end up having to share the bathroom, and it is guaranteed that there will be, at some point in time, disagreements and moments which are non-peaceful.

ETA- in fact, stay away from any sort of emotion at all. Those are only bad news. You might end up liking things or people, which would lead you to become vulnerable to the possibility of losing them, resulting in the catastrophy of negative experience!

Sit still and wait until this whole physical world thing is over.



* I am being sarcastic.

Let me guess...you fall on the autism spectrum, somewhere around "Asperger's".

Right?

I've got some cousins that are either Asperger's or beyond, this is the sort of thing they'd do. And to them, it seems reasonable.

I understand that many of you come to the defense of the ignorant party in this case. I fully respect your right to defend whoever you want to, but I believe Profusion is right. A lot of you are trying to argue on a philosophical level here, and that is unfortunately not what this is about. This is about the truth.

"There are few, if any, absolute truths" - ExNihiloRed

I feel the entire world exists out of absolute truths, we as animals seem to have a hard time embracing these truths.
If not for absolute truths nothing would exist, computers would not work, your tv would not switch, your cells would no longer divide and you would cease to exist.

I like basing my life around absolute truths. Small things can be argued about in a playful manner, but if it is something that has implications, then we should always look for the absolute truth. I know exactly the ignorance you refer to Profusion and it is one that can make me insecure into the depths of my soul.
Humans do things that they cannot justify, we hurt, we lie, we steal, we shag, we cry... And to cope with all these physical and emotional inabilities we lie to ourselves and those around us. When all we need to do is practice mindfulness and self-control.

I feel absolute truth is more critical now than ever. WE NEED TO STOP LYING, to ourselves, to our loved ones, and to the future of humanity. History is written by the victor, so I think a lot of mainstream knowledge is false, to varying degrees obviously.

But this ignorance to me is very apparent, especially in religion. So many people will admit to, defend and thoroughly believe in something that they KNOW is not true. They will lie to themselves, and make themselves believe that they are right, defending their views, whilst having no proof to back any of the claims they make. All so they can lean on the crutch of religion.

Ignorance is bliss... But the bliss of enlightenment is far greater. Educate yourself, think critical thoughts, question as, much as you can allow yourself to and never, ever stop searching for ultimate truth. For there in lies ultimate peace.

a reply to: GreenGunther

Everyone's viewpoint differs from yours. Thus, one person's truth may not coincide with another's, especially over trivial bull# such as this.

Worse, it's not worth a good friendship to go ballistic over something as trivial and petty as this. It smacks of a lack of empathy, and possibly an inability to have normal social interactions.

a reply to: Bedlam

Trivial as it may be, ultimate truth is ultimate, there are no different viewpoints. Perspective is each individuals business. If they do not have perspective to understand that ultimate truth is universal than they are not individuals I wish to communicate with.

And perhaps this incident was just the straw that broke the camels back.

originally posted by: Profusion


How do you have a relationship with someone who doesn't care about truth?

SHINE on them as a ray of conscious LIGHT* and move on w/ hope some of the TRUTH discussed eventually reaches them. It doesn't bother 1 as much now for its understood the Truth scares many into denial disbelief or doubt...

a reply to: Bluesma

I have been stripped of my own personal truth. It is a very enlightening experience. There is no room for such things as personal truth in a world that exists out of ultimate truth. Personal truth is just someone trying to justify their own beliefs to themselves.