Well, I have 2 questions to ponder about, and the second one is the more interesting.

1. people can't handle the truth?

I guess people can't handle the truth because nobody likes to admit they were wrong, they made a mistake or they were fools. That is rather understandable psychologically speaking.

Now here comes the 2nd question:

2. Were humans in the PAST better at handling/accepting the truth then nowadays?

I would say yes, because there was less political correctness and things were more obvious. Nowadays there are just too much spinning...

The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - is certainly too big to fit into any human brain.

It's not even computable in general.

"Certain commandments will never be placed in court, "thou shall not steal, "thou shall not commit adultry", and "thou shall not lie". The reason is because courts consists of Lawyers, Judges, and politicians. It creates a hostile enviroment."

Their no such thing like the truth, their yust points of view and those are relative

Sure there is. Your wife is 200 lbs. It is called fat. But you don't want to acknowledge it...

See?

I think people can handle alot more truth than anyone thinks.
Its just people would rather be lied to and happy, then know the truth and be sad.

Go go said the bird. Human Beings cannot bear too much Truth...

well, what is the truth really?

well, what is the truth really?

Truth, perhaps is a relationship between certain facts?

I doubt anyone actually KNOWS the whole truth.

We still don't know the truth about important things.

Theories are not truth.

I doubt anyone actually KNOWS the whole truth.

We still don't know the truth about important things.

Theories are not truth.

Only Religious doctrines can believe in a ABSOLUTE truth. But that is just a unverifiable.

Scientific Truths are not ABSOLUTE truths but they are verifiable. Thus Scientific Truth is preferable than the religious one.

As for Truth itself. As I have said previously - truth seems to be a relationship between certain facts.

Example - Apple falls to the ground, Earth goes round the sun, moon goes round the Earth. And the relationship between these facts is Gravity. Hence gravity is the truth in this respects.

Theories are explanation for the available facts and thus are only provisional truth.

I see science as a way of finding useful ideas. They may or may not be entirely true, but they work repeatedly within certain parameters.

I should have known, you guys gonna get stuck with religion.

I was thinking everyday stuff, like fat wife, stupid kid, failure at work and such, when I said people can't handle the truth. Examples:

In some schools teachers can't use red color to grade the kids works because that is offensive if they get an F in red. Sure if it is in blue, that is much more acceptable.My vet didn't dare to call my cat fat, so he wouldn't hurt my feelings. I know the cat was fat, I can handle the truth...

We can't call fat women fat, because they are BBW, big beautiful wome, my ass.

See where I am going? Black people couldn't handle the truth that OJ, their star is a murderer. Republicans can't handle that W is a lying moron.

And so on, and so on. So for a moment, let's leave religion out and just concentrate on easily proveable stuff.

So again question #2: were people better in the past at handling the truth??

I agree with the answer you gave to #2 in first post. Hell, now days fact that babies suck milk from mother's tits is forbidden to be shown in airports (and almost all public palces, like on the bus, etc.) No one paid any attention when I was young - was just a common fact of life - a public truth if you like.

People have a mental framework upon wich they create their reality. That framwork always rests upon certain maxims. When a truth comes out that contradicts a previously accepted maxim, it also sends the message to the adhearant that anything else in their worldview can/may be wrong. To accept that means accepting the possibility their entire existence (or part thereof) maybe based upon a lie, and accepting that means accepting the possibility that a driving force in their life was nonexistent, and THAT (for some) is too much for their ego to take. We all see ourselves as essentially "good"... even Hitler and Torquemada believed in their essential "goodness". We defend this core innocence with our very existence. If we accept the possibility that what we are wrong, we have to then accept the possibility that we are not essentially good... this road, for many, leads to a sense of worthlessness and depression. It is natural for the psyche to defend against such a possibility. Thus, the walls go up... and everything else (i.e. everything contrasting) is attacked. This core attribute of the human mind is the foundation of racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination.

We are creatures driven to obtain security. The most primative and typical form of that end is the need to create a reality and force it upon everybody esle. To force "others" to think like you do is the ultimate security. It says, "I'm strong... I'm in control." All of which is an illusion anyway. But you get the picture.

Truth, as we see it, is what we make it. When that truth slams into someone elses, it is not at all unimaginable that the result is hatred and conflict.

~String

Beautifully said...

We all see ourselves as essentially "good"... even Hitler and Torquemada believed in their essential "goodness". We defend this core innocence with our very existence. ~String

A lot of people who have gone through trauma (either sustained emotional or incident abuse type) do not feel this way, at least part of the time. I'd like to think one can be good and never question that, but it seems to me that the one's who never wonder if they are good are the people I would never leave alone with a child of mine.

To wonder about one's essential goodness and to believe it does not exist are two very different things.

Do you believe you are essentially good, or to you believe you are essentially bad. And I don't mean in the Judeo-Christian sense of "we are all evil doers at our core". I mean, do you see yourself as BAD or do you see yourself as GOOD. People who see themselves as essentially bad are usually the chronically depressed, sad, angry or otherwise disturbed.

To see yourself as essentially good, but sometimes doubting it, is healthy. To be convinced you are essentially bad is a horrible thing.

~String

To wonder about one's essential goodness and to believe it does not exist are two very different things.

I was responding to the blanket idea that everyone thinks they are good and fight hard from this assumption. See the post I responded to. If even the healthy, as you put it, can wonder about their own goodness on occasion, then they probably to not fight with the kind of rigidity the other poster was asserting. They may wonder if they were wrong. Also, clearly not everyone thinks they are good, and this contradicts the other poster.

Do you believe you are essentially good, or to you believe you are essentially bad. And I don't mean in the Judeo-Christian sense of "we are all evil doers at our core". I mean, do you see yourself as BAD or do you see yourself as GOOD. People who see themselves as essentially bad are usually the chronically depressed, sad, angry or otherwise disturbed.

People who've gone through trauma also. Of course these are partially included above, but I wouldn't use the word disturbed to describe them.

To see yourself as essentially good, but sometimes doubting it, is healthy. To be convinced you are essentially bad is a horrible thing.
I agree.

People can't handle YOUR truth because it's not truth for them.

I guess you never heard of objectivity...

I guess you never heard of objectivity...

Does everyone on Earth have the same "objectivity"?

Is the "truth" the same for an Iranian living in mud-brick, one-room house in the middle of the Iranian desert as the "truth" is for someone living in a highrise Manhattan condo worth billions of dollars?

Baron Max

Does everyone on Earth have the same "objectivity"?

Is the "truth" the same for an Iranian living in mud-brick, one-room house in the middle of the Iranian desert as the "truth" is for someone living in a highrise Manhattan condo worth billions of dollars?

Baron Max

Some people have objectivity. I like to think that I am more objective than I am subjective... though, I can't deny the possibility that THAT oppinion is wrong and... well... subjective!

The best we can hope to do is verify those things which are obvious and unchanging truths (There is a Sun, There is a Moon, There is Gravity). Once you start with the basics, you can move on to more etherial matters.

~String

The best we can hope to do is verify those things which are obvious and unchanging truths (There is a Sun, There is a Moon, There is Gravity).
The Moon only exists when you're watching it.

You are, of course, referring to personal maxims; I am refering to something that's constant regardless of oppinion. The point is, you have to start with the basics-- should you find a person who is unaware of the moon, then perhaps verify the reality of the cave they live in and the snails they eat. THOSE would then be the basics... you get my point.

The moon, however, still exists despite one's acceptance of the fact. If you find someone who cannot accept even the basest maxim, then don't bother. You are either talking to a child, a lunatic, or someone with a low IQ-- if that's the case, then what's the point?

~String

I would say yes, because there was less political correctness and things were more obvious.
Didn't people believe for like 2000 years that we didn't live in the real world, but a reflection of it, and all that other non-sense because they felt inferior to the Greeks? Didn't Taoists believe that they could live forever? Unless you mean like a few hundred years ago, in which case I believe people of the past weren't just more capable of accepting the truth, but more intellectual in general. At least in Western Europe(then again, I'm comparing the Europe of the renaissance to today's America).

In this thread I am talking generally not about religion, but everyday life. Thus 200 years ago when Napoleon wanted a war with Russia, he didn't have to make up bullshit reasons for it, he just had to say: let's conquer Russia...

In this thread I am talking generally not about religion, but everyday life. Thus 200 years ago when Napoleon wanted a war with Russia, he didn't have to make up bullshit reasons for it, he just had to say: let's conquer Russia...

Napoleon didn't have NBC, CBS, CNN and all the newspapers in the country writing nasty articles about him or his desires.
Napoleon didn't have a bunch of no-brain protestors screaming silly slogans at him and marching through the streets protesting his actions.

I don't think it has anything to do with "truth", it has to do with power.

Baron Max

Will the truth benefit me? People have personal agendas nowadays. No one's going to listen to crazy Napolean anymore.

Will the truth benefit me?

That, of course, depends on what that "truth" is. If it's the "truth" that the girl/woman you really like wants to have sex with you, then.....?

No one's going to listen to crazy Napolean anymore.

There are, of course, thousands of "Little Napoleon's" running around the world ....and they MAKE people listen to them and do what they say. Just think about it ...your boss? ...your parents? ...Robert Mugabe? ...Hamas? ...Hezbollah? ...news men and women? ...Wikipedia?

You might even be a "Little Napoleon" to your dog or your kids.

Baron Max

Instead of calling it truth, it might be more useful to ask why people don't like to change their views. I think people all have developed their own views through certain ways and that they have become comfortable and content with living with these beliefs. Anything that would profoundly change these beliefs, the first reaction is to reject them because just like scientific paradigms, it would require a lot more thinking and rethinking on their part.

I've raised rational arguments with people about certain topics that would inevitably lead them to the same conclusion as mine, but its just human nature to want to stay with one's own beliefs. I don't think people in the past were biologically more willing or unwilling to change their views, however I do think that culture has the biggest role in this. Some cultures may have made people more willing to be open-minded but as a whole, I think that any organized religion or socio-political system that we have seen encourages people to think as a herd and only accept the ideas of the group. Sure, democracy as a pure ideal encourages people to be open to changes but in practice, certain smaller groups and certain ways of thinking overpower the others through nationalism, political power struggles, etc... Basically it is just easier and more beneficial for people to go along with whatever is working for them until they are forced to change because of environmental factors.

There are a minority of people who are more conscious about what is going on and who are better able to filter information from their environment and I think these are the people who arent as conditioned to thinking only in certain ways.