Convictions Are Greater Foes Of Truth Than Lies pt. 2

Continuing on this series of posts (a handy way of killing birds with one stone, an English Essay and a few days’ worth of posts).

What do you mean?

What is this crap about convictions and lies, and ‘the truth.’

Now I’ll attempt to answer that here, bear in mind this will be almost all own interpretation, as dearest Nietzche declined to give us an explanation in simple layman’s English.

So first of all: Conviction, what is this and why is it so dangerous?

Merriam Webster defines a conviction as:  a strong persuasion or belief. So what he means is that a strongly held belief is a greater foe (impediment) to the discovery of truth than lies.

And so what is the truth, is this even possible? Is there a universal truth?

My interpretation of his ideas (and those of many others) is that ‘truth’ is not an absolute proposition, found neither in the black or the white, rather in the grey area between. A quote commonly attributed to the German philosopher Hegel is such that:

Truth is found neither in the thesis nor the antithesis, but in an emergent synthesis which reconciles the two.

What he means to say is that the truth is to be found between two extremes, thesis and antithesis. Not inside one of them.

. An example of this is in the argument of the perfect diet. Our thesis will be paleo, or the atkins diet, one that involves consuming a diet mainly consisting of healthy fats and animal products. On the other side, our antithesis shall be the vegan diet, where no animal products are consumed, reliant heavily on grains and vegetables. Both parties may be able to make their point with poignant examples of successes, but which one is true? Or so to say which one is more accurate?

We should find the truth between the two extremities, it’s clear from evidence that a diet of barely any fats isn’t healthy, and a diet comprising of mainly fats cannot be healthy. So we can mix these to sides to provide a synthesis, where we will find the truth. It’s agreed by almost everyone that we should eat more vegetables, more healthy meats and less processed products to have optimum health and so by combining two disciplines we find the most accurate truth.

We must also accept that what is true for one person or situation may not be for a different one. In continuation of the diet example, a perfect diet for one person may be eating lots of fruit and vegetables and very little meat. But this won’t apply for everyone, for example people with fructose intolerance would be severely crippled by this diet. So we find that truths are not always consistent across all populations and situations.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s