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."
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.
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
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
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. 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. I agree.
