Are things true or just useful fictions? Why I prefer using the pragmatist language

[Carl-Richard]

I have always been attracted to the pragmatic way of describing knowledge: as useful fictions. In other words, things aren't so much true as they are useful for fulfilling some goal, e.g. describing, predicting or making sense of something in the world. However, the common and valid objection to this is that in order to establish that something is useful, you have to establish that something is the case, i.e. true. 

And I understand the point of that objection, and that fundamentally, a certain kind of realism is unavoidable when trying to speak about anything. However, I still prefer the pragmatic way of speaking, namely for this reason: it keeps you perpetually grounded and aware of your fundamental assumptions. Any time you claim "this is true" without clarifying with "granted that we're speaking about constructions, concepts, models, etc., for the sake of making sense of the world, etc.", you become more prone to slipping into naive realism, i.e. taking your constructions for something more than just constructions. This is a terrifying prospect and something I intuitively want to avoid, and clinging to the pragmatist language game provides me with a sense of safety against this.

So it's not that I think the pragmatist view is ultimately "more true" than the realist one. It's ironically that I think it's more useful. I think it's safer and wiser. And at the end of the day, it's simply a different language game, a different tool, and you should use the tools which you think are the best for you. It doesn't really change anything at the bottom of things, only how you interact with the world. And when you constantly interact with the world while using deep and heavy abstractions, keeping the fact that they're abstractions perpetually above board is a very sobering and responisible thing to do.

I might also prefer this because I'm more feminine in this respect, in that I don't want to be too quick to judge or conclude something as a clear-cut case, or that I prefer to minimize risk, or that I prefer to express things fully with all their flaws even though it takes more work or looks less elegant. And someone else might simply prefer the opposite and are more masculine in this respect. "This is true and this is not" is more elegant and assertive than "this is useful for this end", but it's also more dangerous and can lead to self-deception if you're not otherwise diligent with how you use your language.

Edited 21 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

But utility is one of the ultimate constructions.

So, no, truth cannot be reduced to utility.

Truth cannot be instrumental.

You are afraid of taking back your full authority as God. It takes balls to make a truth claim. Cowards will not reach God. Because God is fearless.

Edited yesterday at 08:55 AM by Leo Gura

[Carl-Richard]

@Leo Gura Is it true that you only read the title before commenting? 🥲

[aurum]

9 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

However, the common and valid objection to this is that in order to establish that something is useful, you have to establish that something is the case, i.e. true.

This objection itself has many holes.

There’s no reason that what is useful must also be true. In fact, it’s often the opposite.

Deception and bending the truth is one of the most useful tools for survival.

[UnbornTao]

Being effective and being honest aren't the same pursuit, so they have different goals.

We can notice that there are layers to the truth. Being angry may be a fact. Then, if we happen to find out that hurt underlies such emotion, that is somehow a truer event. Still, are anger and hurt "true" by themselves–existentially real? In other words, is our experience an activity? What's not constructed but inherent?

If the truth is that we don't know what anything is, what does that leave us with, considering self-survival (hence value, meaning, function, use) as our primal and central pursuit?

We're hard-pressed to act in spite of our condition of uncertainty.

Another reflection: say the truth of anything can't be useful since by definition the truth is just what is the case. The nature of a chair is what it is, and its function gets to exist relative to something other than itself–ourselves.

Value is a second order phenomenon that is applied by us, not intrinsic; being is prior to construction, conception, activity.

Edited 13 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Ulax]

The thing is that once you reject truth you cannot say anything. I get the irony of me saying this lol.

1 hour ago, aurum said:

This objection itself has many holes.

There’s no reason that what is useful must also be true. In fact, it’s often the opposite.

Deception and bending the truth is one of the most useful tools for survival.

Yes but in claiming something is useful you are making a truth claim. I think that is the point Carl is getting at.

[Someone here]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Leo Gura Is it true that you only read the title before commenting? 🥲

How dare you ! Some respect for the boss. 

We don't do this here 😂 

[Nilsi]

11 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I might also prefer this because I'm more feminine in this sense, in that I don't want to be too quick to judge or conclude something as a clear-cut case, or that I prefer to minimize risk, or that I prefer to express things fully with all their flaws even though it takes more work or looks less elegant. And someone else might simply prefer the opposite and are more masculine in this sense. "This is true and this is not" looks more elegant and assertive than "this is useful for this end", but it's also more dangerous and can lead to self-deception if you're not otherwise diligent with how you use your language.

What’s pragmatic about expressing things “fully with all their flaws even though it takes more work”?

If you’re in a business meeting and start rambling about things that could be conveyed more efficiently through high-level concepts, that’s not pragmatic at all. The same applies in scientific contexts - when there are well-defined, abstract, and complex concepts with very precise meanings, it’s probably a good idea to use them.

I’m actually picking up more of an artistic sentiment in what you’re suggesting - which seems to be a desire for vivid and lively ("feminine") expression over jargon or abstractions. Nietzsche was very much a master of this. His language is so dynamic and rich that, even before you grasp his ideas intellectually, you feel their impact on a visceral level through the sheer force of his words.

This also reminds me of Susan Sontag’s Against Interpretation, a classic in 20th-century literary criticism. Sontag critiques the “masculine” or “phallogocentric” tendency to reduce unique artistic expressions into rigid interpretive frameworks. She advocates for a more “erotic” way of engaging with art - one that is more sensory and descriptive than rational or interpretive.

The same theme is also very much front and center in Deleuze and Guattari’s Anti-Oedipus. They criticize the trend in psychoanalysis (and continental philosophy in general) of interpreting every unique human expression as merely a complicated symptom of some underlying universal condition, like the Oedipus complex, or whatever.

So ironically, and correct me if I’m misreading you, it seems like what you’re advocating for is actually an approach that’s strictly anti-pragmatic in nature (and what could be more anti-pragmatic than the feminine?). Maybe I’m just projecting, idk.

Edited 21 hours ago by Nilsi

[Leo Gura]

5 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Leo Gura Is it true that you only read the title before commenting? 🥲

It is false.

[Carl-Richard]

@Nilsi

You seem to be talking about a more practical everyday concept of pragmatism. I'm specifically talking about epistemological pragmatism: the idea that "truth" is better stated as "utility".

Epistemological pragmatism is more linguistically messy than epistemological realism, because it's obsessed with stating the context and conditions for truth claims; "this is true in so far it's useful for this aim". Meanwhile, realism focuses on the truth claims themselves; "it's true though". Of course, realism can still be context aware, but it's not baked into the language. The concept of utility always signifies "utility for what or whom"? So it's always somewhat context aware. On the other hand, the concept of truth, fundamentally, is true by virtue of what it is, irrespective of any external condition. So realism need not be context aware.

Now, what pragmatism gains by being more informative (context awareness), it loses by being less elegant (stating the truth plainly). In this way, it's more feminine; it's less concerned about reducing things down and rather stating things in their full complexity, even if it's more chaotic and messy; being open and allowing vs. judging and deciding.

All in all, in their mature (not naive) forms, I see pragmatism and realism as simply different ways of speaking about the same issue, with different pros and cons. And I simply prefer the baked-in context awareness over the elegance.

Edited 12 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[UnbornTao]

If it works, it works. 

If it's true, it's true.

[Letho]

@Carl-Richard Reminds me of William James' variant of pragmatism, quoting him "truth is what works in the way of belief." This idea that the usefulness of a concept underpins its validity is something I see resonating there in what you’ve said and is reflective of my recent re-evaluation of identity in the context of ego and shedding those versus acquiring those that only have true validity relative to the ontology that reflects our highest potentialisation. This follows from my new perspective that its what all cultures are inherently always attempting to do, at least in as much as they’re not granted with too much privilege that results in an internal imbalance. James emphasized the fluid nature of truth, suggesting that ideas gain credibility based on their practical application, not merely abstract accuracy; to play devils advocate, I am moving for both, where in the nondescript, that would be in exploring the infinite nature of consciousness to expand it to otherwise hidden environments inaccessible to basic sense reality, while grounding myself in challenging sense based environments that grow all good adaptations to them.

Pragmatism safeguards against the dogma of naive realism, the latter which I’ve also brought up recently and how need to dive deep to remove as much of it from our psyche as possible as it’s symptomatic of that ‘silver spoon consciousness’ I implied, i.e. to align, pretty much the removal of everything related to identity politics as it presently stands in rotting most peoples consciousness. And on that note though you wisely acknowledge that some realism is inevitable, like how gravity isn’t just simply “useful” but is rooted in observable, measurable forces, in the same way that my work in bioelectrical agency is. Which is why its so “useful” to tie the infinite to the finite with things that continually teach us to better adapt to it by having a project to work on that tests this 'usefulness adaptivity' overtime . To wrap the infinite with the finite, as James might suggest, the challenge is navigating the "stream of consciousness" while recognizing that all maps of reality are partial tools to be wielded, not ends in themselves. This dynamic balance between certainty and flexibility is an art, a way of life and something Leo undoubtedly and measurably contends with in reaching his greater heights, so there’s depth and wisdom to your words regardless as it to pertains to how the gestalts of consciousness levels provide us with new lenses to perceive the same “truths” more than “useful fictions” and while at the same time, to that very utilitarian measurement.  Without some degree of realism, communication and action in the world become incoherent, and that realism is where collectivism outside of the ‘infinity of individuality’ by comparison, is our answer on how we create a shared, consistent reality, which in spite of its many flaws, is why of course science in spite of its flaws is as important in modern times as it was when we stopped burning *witches to crosses*, a strong parallel to the noted identity politics, symptomatic of naive realism, we struggle so strongly with today. This survival imperative as well for the 'coherency among the masses' is the undertone I sense in your latest response as well in terms of validating both the infinite and the finite through the utilitarian, though to that end, that too is by our same bias i.e. useful fictions yet increasingly more measurable things like consciousness threshold; level; capacity; etc.

 

Edited 13 hours ago by Letho

[Staples]

Epistemological pragmatism is of course wrong, from a Truth perspective.

But it is the most powerful worldview if you care about survival and maximising your experience.

All of these paradigms are better thought of as modes we can operate within to achieve specific goals.

If your goal is to connect with truth, then go be a good skeptic. If you want to feed yourself, get pragmatic.

[Leo Gura]

"Truth is whatever your colleagues let you get away with" 

[Ero]

23 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

"Truth is whatever your colleagues let you get away with" 

There’s a lot of that even in math, the supposed immutable edifice at the foundation of science. Here’s a good quanta article.

[Nilsi]

12 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Nilsi

Epistemological pragmatism is more linguistically messy than epistemological realism, because it's obsessed with stating the context and conditions for truth claims; "this is true in so far it's useful for this aim". Meanwhile, realism focuses on the truth claims themselves; "it's true though". Of course, realism can still be context aware, but it's not baked into the language. The concept of utility always signifies "utility for what or whom"? So it's always somewhat context aware. On the other hand, the concept of truth, fundamentally, is true by virtue of what it is, irrespective of any external condition. So realism need not be context aware.

Now, what pragmatism gains by being more informative (context awareness), it loses by being less elegant (stating the truth plainly). In this way, it's more feminine; it's less concerned about reducing things down and rather stating things in their full complexity, even if it's more chaotic and messy; being open and allowing vs. judging and deciding.

All in all, in their mature (not naive) forms, I see pragmatism and realism as simply different ways of speaking about the same issue, with different pros and cons. And I simply prefer the baked-in context awareness over the elegance.

I totally reject this avoidance of making any kind of affirmative claim without qualifying and undermining it. This is the complete opposite of taking ownership over one's reality.

Again, this is the genius of Nietzsche. Implicit here is always Fichte's absolute self - the active "I" at the core of all experience. And Nietzsche, taking what was still unconscious in Homer, pushed this inevitable activity of the self, and with it, language itself, to its absolute limit.

This is precisely Nietzsche's will to power: the will affirming and realizing itself as the supreme legislator of reality.

Quote

“And life itself confided this secret to me: ‘Behold,’ it said, ‘I am that which must always overcome itself.
To be sure, you call yourself will to truth, you wisest ones, but that is only a part of the will to power, and indeed the most reckless one!
You cannot will beyond yourselves; for you desire the will’s ebbing: to me you are regressors!" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Edited 5 hours ago by Nilsi

[zurew]

On 2024. 10. 05. at 8:48 AM, Carl-Richard said:

However, the common and valid objection to this is that in order to establish that something is useful, you have to establish that something is the case, i.e. true. 

Arent you doing equivocation there?

If you use a pragmatist definition of truth, then the objection you are mentioning in your sentence there is not really an objection unless you are doing equivocation and you are using a different definition of truth there. 

 

Asking this question in your title ( Are things true or just useful fictions) already presuppose a theory of truth and presumably what you are trying to do here (if Im reading you and understanding you correctly) - you are trying to make a case for pragmatist theory of truth. If thats the case, then under pragmatist semantics that question doesn't really make much sense , because under that semantics, things are true in so far as they are useful to a given end.

Under different semantics though your question could make more sense, given that under those semantics things being true is different from things being useful. 

Edited 3 hours ago by zurew