Nietzsche on Truth and Lie (1991)
rickroderick.org
rickroderick.org
The first is pretty relatable for an adolescent in Germany, he was found drunk in a ditch after having a few beer.
The second: He ate a sausage behind a pillar in the cloister. (At the time you were just allowed to eat in the dining hall during the appropriate times.)
So every time someone uses Nietzsche in an argument, I imagine a pubescent guy saying the thing while mumbling a sausage behind a pillar. Of course in my imagination he has the Nietzsche beard as well.
On a more earnest note, Nietzsche clearly was a great mind. Which was later eaten away by neurosyphilis.
The Nietzsche beard?
I don't know what image of Nietzsche you have, but he's well known for having a certain style of mustache, not a beard.
"Nietzsche clearly was a great mind. Which was later eaten away by neurosyphilis"
It's not clear that he had syphilis, and there are some arguments that he did not, like these:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3313279/Madness-of-Nie...
http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/jns/reviews/richard-schain.-the-l...
Thanks for the sources on the Syphilis, I like this Part from the second article:
> The important question for Nietzsche scholars is whether this diagnostic controversy has any interpretative bearing. We know, for example, that Nietzsche suffered from insomnia but it's not clear how that information impacts how one interprets Nietzsche. Of course dementia of any kind is a far more serious condition and seems to bring with it textual implications. But what exactly are those implications?
This is kind of similar to the discussion whether Art and Artist are connected or not.
Whenever someone opines on what Nietzsche "really meant", it's good to take that with a grain of salt, and read what Nietzsche actually wrote for yourself.
In this case, see Nietzsche's essay "On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense"
https://www.kth.se/social/files/5804ca7ff276547f5c83a592/On%...
Things like talking about power in the article seem more related to people that came after Nietzsche. Something more like Foucault.
I also don't think he's really concerned with mathematical versions of truth.
I think there's probably a good way to interpolate between Nietzsche and the programming world. In the sense of believing in things because the community does. That's probably another discussion.
Philosophize with a Hammer!
Afaik this is related to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, so all you can say that within the axiom set you can't prove that there is no contradiction. (Note that this doesn't mean there is a contradiction, but you can't prove there is or there isn't any.)
Taken out of context, he seemed a bit crazy. My Christian upbringing told me people like Nietzsche didn’t believe anything could be known, which is demonstrably false. Things can be “known” but it’s context dependent.
This is one of the lectures where Roderick discusses fallibilism which he characterizes as "strong beliefs, weakly held."
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.
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.
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.
1. Knowing that truth exists but we won’t ever know we found it or be 100% sure that we did
2. Knowing that there is no truth
In both cases we are stuck not knowing what we know. Furthermore, #2 may only apply to only subsets of truths. Ie., this book is real. This iPhone is “true”. Yet not knowing what’s outside of the universe or knowing it can’t be known does not seem to influence the day to day.
My perspective, is truth as a goal in itself is not useful. An interesting way to talk to people is see the consequences of their beliefs on them, not on the theoretically world where everyone does or doesn’t believe as they believe.
I’ve met too many good Christians who acted poorly. I’ve met many asshole non-believers. In the end their faith or lack their of doesn’t appear correlated with how they treat their mother, their father, or others. In the short time we have on this planet I emphasize how I’m actually being treated.
Great comment.
It is very rare, in my opinion to find anyone who isn't acting on beliefs as if they were knowledge. 99.999% of people are unable to understand that what they think is 'knowledge' is actually a set of unverified assumptions. These assumptions are presented as true at school, in work, on TV, etc and they see that everyone else treats these assumptions as true, so... well they are true, right?
People cannot accept holding something as a hypothesis. They may even say they do this, but they do not change their hypotheses when they get new information. If pushed, they may state something to be a 'hypothesis' and that they use the word 'know' as a shortcut to that - all fine - but then if they are presented with additional information they cannot take it on and will reject it. Cognitive dissonance has no place in their minds - it is a tension that is unacceptable. Apparently most of us seek certainty and prefer a certain story to just resting with the evidence.
The idea of 'believing we know' permeates our lives, and is why I argue that science is religion. And beliefs held as true operate on fundamental levels, despite a lack of verified evidence.
TLDR, people prefer stories to truth.
Ie even if you probabilistic view on a stock. You ultimately comment by buying and collapsing the probability into a single truth.
I think most, no, all people act with certainty when they act.
The concern for truth and power (metaphysics as imperialism; theories setting the context of what counts as fact; the illusion of democracy) is certainly food for thought.
[0] http://rickroderick.org/304-marcuse-and-one-dimensional-man-...
[1] http://rickroderick.org/301-paul-ricoeur-the-masters-of-susp...
[2] http://rickroderick.org/306-foucault-and-the-disappearance-o...
[3] http://rickroderick.org/206-nietzsche-the-will-to-power-1991...