Swapping One Pacifier For Another.

I would love to join this group, but I suspect that naivety is much like climbing a series of ever taller hills - you never know you're not at the top until it's time to start starting tumbling downwards again
TheTardyDodo TheTardyDodo
31-35, M
7 Responses Jul 17, 2007

I was born sarcastic, cynical, and world-weary. For me, being naive is a goal, a life's ambition. I am getting there. Today, I assume the best of people until they give me irrefutable evidence that I'm wrong.

Words often make things quite murky, unfortunately! <br />
<br />
I think that truth is a difficult and multifaceted concept, and when condensed into a single word, it often obscures some important aspects. <br />
<br />
I think that 'Truth' as in observable fact, can be both relative AND absolute, in that a given system can posses both these features. Think about relativity for example, with that classic example of two trains approaching each other. There are things that are inherently relative/subjective/observer dependent/ based on perspective like the apparent speed and direction of travel of any given train, and there are things that remain inherently absolute/observer independent, like the trains' respective energies and masses. Whilst those might seem like separate individual truths, they are as separable as we might think, especially when it comes to questions of the experienced universe and not just theory.<br />
<br />
This sort of 'truth' thinking appeals to me, as does the related idea of paraconsistent logic ( http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/ ) , although I haven't made any real study of either yet.<br />
<br />
All that to say that I'm not sure that it actually does come down to absolute versus relative.<br />
<br />
As for ignorance, innocence, and naivety all being the same, I think that when defined as being purely descriptions of knowledge states (ie a state where knowledge of a particular piece of information is absent) , that would make them the same. But that's the interesting thing; they are all the same in that respect, and yet we apply value, and moral-value judgements about that state of not knowing, right down to the implicit assumption that knowledge has automatic value over not-knowledge.

I was curious about where this discussion was heading and wanted to get a few points of clarification here. <br />
Firstly, if we assume everything as relational rather than absolute, then truth is relative.<br />
Secondly, are innocence, ignorance and naivety the same or are they not? <br />
If we follow these to their logical conclusion, then one falsehood could be another's truth and vice versa.<br />
Just a thought.

That's a very interesting point, and not one I'd given much thought to before; what sort of relationship do I have with the truth? It's especially interesting in light of the fact that for much of the time, the final arbiter of what we accept as truth is intuitive, rather than purely analytical, especially on things that matter to us.<br />
<br />
In this sense, the concept of naivety extends that to one's relationship not only with truth, but ignorance.<br />
<br />
If ignorance is the state of not being aware of a given 'fact', then innocence is the term that is loaded with subjective celebration of this, and naivety is the pejorative equivalent.<br />
<br />
It's a curious thing to contemplate as to whether or not this idea is helpful, and how this reflects the various values we put on the concept of truth.<br />
<br />
Is truth better than falsehood? I've usually encountered treatments of this question in the context of philosophy of ethics, rather than addressed as a fundamental question itself; apparently this is one of the basic precepts of many schools of philosophy, that truth has inherent value and is a worthwhile pursuit.<br />
<br />
And are facts "better" than ignorance? And what does better mean, and why different knowledge states have impact on self-worth or self-evaluation?<br />
<br />
Very thought provoking, Tate.

I say go for it; no matter how far you're among friends.

Any idea how far off the end is? *tries to peek*

I say keep going; hand over hand, until the last person. The last person (the winner) can claim the right to grab and hide the instrument that the other uses to constantly beat her/himself silly with over the dumb **** we use to fall for.