Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies. – Nietzsche
At one point in time, nearly everyone was convinced the world was not round. Eventually, the truth won, but what a fight it was!
What does that mean?
This is a quote from a guy who also famously said “There are no facts, only interpretations.” From that statement, I believe it is safe to presume that he wasn’t that fond of absolutes.
Convictions are very absolute. In many cases, they are more about belief than facts. This basis makes the convictions unassailable by anything, including the Truth.
Lies, on the other hand, are rarely based on anything, and can usually be overturned by simple exposure to the truth. This makes lies a relatively easy opponent to defeat.
Based on the above paragraphs, his statement that convictions are more dangerous to the truth than lies seems pretty straight forward, and more easily understood.
Why is examining your convictions important?
What do you stand for? What do you believe in? If you are having trouble answering these questions, or having difficulty explaining why, then you might want to reconsider them. To me, difficulty says that you don’t understand yourself very well, and your conviction even less.
This test isn’t to shake your faith, but to help you understand it. What you believe and why you believe, that is part of the core of who you are. That core should be well understood and well defined. If it isn’t, do you really know who you are?
However, if you can take a stand and convince yourself, that is a different matter. But, per the quote, if you have convictions which are not based in truth, you will have a hard time accepting the truth, even when it is presented to you in a convincing manner.
Thus, taking time to consider your convictions, to examine and test them, is important. Not only for your sake, but for the sake of all the others who seek you for guidance, assistance, or advice. They have expectations of you, based on truth. What will you give them?
Where can I apply this in my life?
This is going to be a very introspective post. Where in your life do you hold convictions which are in contradiction to the truth? That gets back to the heart of the belief of author of the quote. What are actual facts, and how does one tell if they are actually true?
Take the theory of Global Warming. There are credentialed scientists who insist that the data shows not only are we warming, but that it is man made, and that man can reverse it. Other scientists, looking at the same, or very similar data, come to other conclusions, especially about the cause any measured warming and what man can do about it.
We have data, yet they each interpret them in a different manner. This results in very different conclusions. Unfortunately, many people have joined one camp or the other and are convinced (hold a strong conviction) that their side is correct.
Therein lies the problem. The truth has ceased to matter. The argument has ceased to be scientific (except around the edges, where people snipe about methods and validity of certain data sets) and become a debate of belief, of convictions, of theology.
Whatever the truth may be, it is now lost. It was trampled as the theologians of each side tried to rally the troops and surge forward. The battle has raged in earnest since the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, and few minds have been changed once they became convinced of the correctness of their side.
If you have convictions one way or the other, any truth which dares to try to exert itself must be destroyed to save your convictions. And that is where things begin to go badly for all. When the truth is attacked because it doesn’t fit within our convictions, we have all lost.
Whether you put much stock in Nietzsche or not, I believe that this quote has a place in our toolbox. If we know ourselves and can present our convictions with facts and truth, and withstand the challenges of other views, we can be relatively certain we are right. At least for now.
Yes, there will be people who lie to us. But our own inner convictions will tell us the truth is a lie if we allow it to happen.
From: Twitter, @frethinkaur
confirmed at :http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/f/friedrichn124906.html
Photo by fsse8info
This quote has drawn clear distinctions the boundaries between conviction, truth and lie. But all it takes to change a certain statement into a truth is conviction. And so goes for the lie. You need to believe that it is a lie, to accept that it is a lie.
Thanks for stopping by and for leaving a comment.
I hope I edited it as you wanted, per your other comment. I’m not sure what you were trying to explain, and I would love to hear back from you. I believe my confusion is between absolute truth and what a person accepts as truth, even if it is not.
Nearly everything you consider true is contextual, experiential, and based on imperfect perception of incomplete information.
Thanks for stopping by, and for leaving such an interesting comment.
I agree. Pretty much everything is our best guess of what is happening. Absolute truth and certainty are luxuries denied we mere mortals. We stagger on, doing the best we can with what we can make of the world and universe around us. We must strive to be as accurate and precise as we can, but eventually, we must make decisions and move on based on our best guess of what is going on around us.
But, if done correctly, you can still have a great deal of fun, despite imperfect perception and incomplete information. Hope to hear from you again.
” especially about the cause any measured warming and what man can do about it.”
WHAT?? You need to clarify what you’re saying. If you’re trying to deny global warming, you are the one with convictions you need to reobserve.
Science and the studies based on the conclusions that our earth is heating up is available to anyone to learn. Spend the 3 years it takes to study all the math and science it takes to understand those thousands and thousands of peer reviewed studies by really really smart people who spent their entire lives studying and learning this every single day.
I was around in the 70’s when we were trying to figure out what we would do with all the displaced people of the frozen north, as the next ice age had already begun. As for the science involved, a 6th grade science project would get a failing grade for changing the method of gathering data in the middle of a series, and then use that inflection to ‘prove’ something was happening (hockey stick graph is only one of many doctored series of temperatures). You do know that you can get most of the raw data yourself, and compare it to what is being reported in the ‘official’ and ‘scientific’ papers?
Yes there is warming in some places. But Arctic and Antarctic ice are at record highs, despite ‘warming models’ predicting complete absence of ice by 2012. As for ‘peer reviewed’, perhaps you should become better acquainted with the meaning of the term. It doesn’t mean a hand-selected group of individuals with similar beliefs. The scientific method REQUIRES the peer reviewers to TRY to break the model. Their job is not to confirm a bias, but to attempt to destroy the work of others. When they cannot break the model, when the facts are unassailable, then the theory is ready to be given some credence. Until all the data and research is provided for anyone and everyone to examine, it is simply not science, at least not in the definition of Galileo, Newton, or Einstein.
There is no proof that mankind can do anything to counter the output of the sun, and all the models which I have seen completely ignore the most complex and most influential greenhouse gas, water vapor. Clouds shade (and cool) large parts of the planet. While this is ignored by the models (and while the models can’t seem to match past data, much less accurately predict future data), they are essentially non-functional.
I don’t mind a debate, but please understand the basis of the Scientific Model, and the simple fact that the global warming proponents refuse to follow it. While there is money on the pro-warming side, it is hard to expect transparency from them. But science requires transparency. Without it, all you have is propaganda, paid for propaganda.
What have you to say?
Pingback: Should we adopt GMOs? | The Efficient Revolution
Now take your philosophy & try to convince a Neanderthal Mohammedan, that their Cult of Death is barbaric & not from a Supreme Being!
I considered simply deleting this comment, but I thought it worth a few moments of time, despite the caricature-like image painted in the comment.
Yes, there are some who kill in the name of Mohammad. But there are twisted and sick people in many cultures. Most will use any excuse they can find to justify their desired behavior. That said, there is fertile ground in some of the interpretations of the Koran.
Just as Christianity had it’s wars of aggression and conversion in the Medieval and Renaissance ages, they are having theirs now. These growing pains are not an excuse, but part of the maturation of a movement. The radicals will eventually eliminate themselves. What we need is for more of the non-radicals to put pressure on the radicals. Without their help, things will get worse instead of better. And more and more people will start painting all Muslims with a broad brush, blaming all for the actions of the few.
Pingback: You Can Change Your Life. You Can Be What You Want To Be. | wavecrestway