> At 09:31 AM 24/03/97 -0800, Tim Rhodes wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 23 Mar 1997, David McFadzean wrote:
> >
> >> Even in extreme cases where someone is going to die a painful death
> >> and there is nothing that can be done, aren't they better off knowing
> >> so that they can make the best use of their remaining time? When is
> >> it better to believe something that isn't true?
> >
> >What about the balance of these truths? The truth that your five year-old
> >is going to die and the truths of human fear, need, love and compassion.
> >Is choosing one truth over another a "lie"?
>
> I thought children might be an exception (they always are). But you seem
> to be using "truth" to mean two different things in your statement so
> your question doesn't make much sense to me. What kind of truth value do
> love and compassion have?
It is a truth (to my mind) that humans need love, that they need to be,
and are, comforted by acts of compassion when they are suffering, and it
is true that the bold untarnished truth often does a poor job when set in
the service of human nature in these regards.
A myth or a legend may not be true in a factual sense, but it may be an
accurate allegory or representation of certain truths about the
relationship between humans and their world.
Which use of the word "true" is more important? (I think it depends on
your situation. "Site specific," if you will.)
-Prof. Tim