[grizzlyy]

I agree. But I think that truth-seeking isn't necessarily cynicism and rejection of the social glue. If, somehow, everyone was open to truth-seeking, then I suppose that being in general agreement of what is true and false, there will be cooperation towards the realization of truth-based actions. But people would rather be lied to so they can continue to feel good. I've even had conversations where people say things like "it doesn't really matter whether it's true or not". It really ... sickens me. Like addicts to their drug dealers, whores to a pimp.

That's the problem. Most people need and want to be lied to to get them to do anything. They want to believe - regardless of whether their beliefs are true or not (not just limited to religion). Show them the bigger picture and they get scared. I believe that I can get them to do what I want, but I will have to resort to manipulation which borders upon lying, and despite ENTPs being good at that, I really, really find it distasteful.

Is this a false dichotomy that I'm drawing? I can either lie/manipulate, the ends justifying the means, or I can tell the truth and achieve nothing?

I believe that most people are in favor of the truth, but you are right they might just be scared of it. I find it fascinating that many people are afraid to die, even if death is completely inevitable. However those who do discover that, like prisoners of the allegorical cave, become enlightened by the truth and no longer live the fear of death. Sad as it seems, I think it's natural for many people to resist change and think that their beliefs become their reality and essentially- their truth in life.

On another note, In my experience I have never lied to another individual to get them to see the truth. For some thick-skulled people it may take a couple of attempts but in foresight things I say is usually taken at face value.

The reason being is that I never lie to peers and comrades. I may be dishonest to authority from time to time to get away from self endangering situations. But in reality, I do not cater to peoples' feelings nor do I say things that are not just. People trust me because they know I only speak the truth.

The flips side to this trait is that sometimes I'm used as the control guinea pig for their truth seeking experiments. However, I'm not against this, since it's some kind of self initiated form of truth seeking... if I'm to serve as some kind of a 'standards' guide, so be it.

I don't believe that lies lead to anywhere except for more lies. Everybody will face reality at some point, even if they don't believe it to be true at the present moment. The best example I can think of is The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. If you've never read it, then I'll summarize and conclude also, that personal experience unfolds the truth itself.

[Istbkleta]

Truth does not exist.

Even if it exists, we are unable to perceive it.

Even if we can perceive it, we cannot relate it to another.

:)
slightly modified version

[The Ant Sparer]

Truth is all in human perception, we make our own truths. There is an objective reality in a physical sense, but there is no real objective truth. (In such a dimension that we are able to learn how to properly influence anyway.) Some people are more "objective" in that they interpret a situation in a more logical way, but logic is afterall just another function of the human brain, not some higher power we access. When you seek these "objective truths" you are simply subjectively interpreting the world in a more logically consistent way. LOGIC (probably) ISN'T NECESSARILY SUPERIOR IN SEEKING AWARENESS. (Don't kill me)

In my opinion anyway...

[Kyle Looney]

And here I thought I was the only person that felt this way. Seems that way, anyway. Regardless, I have to side with the original poster. I do believe there is an objective, rational truth to things. Whether or not that truth, in any given situation, is knowable might be a different argument, but looking at it from a purely 3rd person perspective, there will be a truth there to be had. And I do feel that it is our duty to seek said truth. I agree, that is what I tend to use my debating skills towards these days. I do not care if I'm right nearly as much as whether or not I have the truth (if that makes any sense). I don't want to be necessarily proven right. I want to find the truth so that my "beliefs" are accurate.

[William I am]

I don't think truth can be found except as an answer to a question. Any situation can easily represent or contain multiple truths, but which one, if any is identified, depends on the questions asked.
Most people don't want to ask questions that will likely have unpleasant answers.

[fffffffffffffigs]

I don't think @SpilledMilk is referring to some ultimate, omniscient Truth here, but simply the truth of what is in any given situation. To deny your thoughts about the validity of that ridiculous story would in essence be denying the truth. Just because you have those thoughts doesn't mean you put any personal faith into them (and they can easily be tempered and reshaped with other ideas), but they still exist.

The fact that there are people who wouldn't question that story is what's interesting. We often attribute such behavior to fear or denial, but what if it's just lack of ability? I don't think these people necessarily don't care about the truth; like @carfacce said, it's something everyone seeks. But if their thoughts don't pose them with other such questions and possibilities then their truth is already satisfied.

I think that man was being sincere when he told you you were being paranoid. It's like when someone approaches us with some far-out world conspiracy theory. Even if we have no basis on which we can deny those ideas, we generally don't accept them either. If we ourselves don't already have similar theories and we're not provided with proof for them, we haven't really got much else to go on. You made good points to that man but they weren't concrete enough for him.

I don't think you should get angry with others for being supposedly willingly ignorant or in denial for the sake of comfort, when really it's likely they are just incapable of higher thought.

One day, that missionary's children were playing around the trailer when one crawled underneath the trailer, ran into a nest of rattlesnakes and was bitten. The child screamed, and the missionary ran out of the trailer in response. He put the bitten child into his truck and quickly backed his truck out of the driveway. In his haste, he did not see another child behind his truck and ran that child over. At that instant, his wife ran out of the trailer and upon seeing two of her children severely injured, she collapsed and died of a heart attack.

Btw, I'm sharing this with friends.

[William I am]

@Too many F'ing F's in @fffffffffffffigs, that is one scary idea my friend.

[Narco86]

I believe that I can get them to do what I want, but I will have to resort to manipulation which borders upon lying, and despite ENTPs being good at that, I really, really find it distasteful.

Is this a false dichotomy that I'm drawing? I can either lie/manipulate, the ends justifying the means, or I can tell the truth and achieve nothing?

Somehow I've been thinking along these lines recently. We ENTPs are quite naturals with it come to swaying decisions, especially in an indecisive individual. I was just playing mind control with a friend who was deciding whether to buy a pair of shoes or not when she got so annoyed with me and stormed off. That got me thinking. Manipulation need not border on lying. We just need to open the person's mind to selected options and possibilities that will hijack that person onto our train of thoughts. However, at the end of the day, is it ethical? I mean lying to someone is clearly wrong. (right? LOL) So in truth, is manipulation wrong?

[William I am]

I think this depends on your world view. Dog eat dog and zero-sum? Or collective benefit and best for the individual and the group?

Basically I have no problem manipulating people when my existence is threatened if I don't. This argument can be taken all the way to "well, my profits were dropping, so I had to start a war," but everyone knows that's BS.

The mitigating factors should be the harm done, the benefits, and the necessity.

[Narco86]

Well, mundane mind control aside, I can't really see that much into the future of the effect of my words. And anyways, "harm done, the benefits, and the necessity" are subjective are they not? So does that make "manipulation" a subjective word in terms of ethics?