Which is more important?

Which is more important? Happiness or truth? Ever since Socrates dragged that hypothetical cave-dweller out into the light of day, away from the comforting but ultimately false shadow-play, the relative priority of truth versus happiness has been a central question of Western thought. Amidst the relentless advance of technology and mind-straining leaps in scientific knowledge seen today, the answer to this ancient riddle is now beconing clear: happiness is more important than truth.

All Downhill After Darwin
Humanity's disillusionment with science began when Darwin's theory of evolution dethroned humankind from its privileged position as God's chosen species, and instead revealed the mind, spirit and soul as accidents of natural selection, like penguin flippers or the scarlet buttock-pads of a mandrill. Prior to Darwin, scientific discoveries were hailed with delight as glorious revelations of the wonder of God's creation. The workings of reason were viewed by lofty intellects as justly superior to the ephemeral thrills of emotion. Isaac Newton was immortalized by Alexander Pope in the lines: "and god said/let Newton be/and there was light". After Darwin, scientists were scrutinized with distrust: what gloomy new facts will these people uncover next?

We Are Alone. There Is Nothing Else
And so on into the present. Neurophysiology reduces love, joy, and sorrow to a game of molecules and receptors, molecular genetics unmasks human identity as a code of nucleic acids. Physicists seeking the origin of the time have discovered only the ultimate futility of all human endeavor: eventually, give or take a billion years, entropy will engulf all the cosmos. All energy gradients will exhaust themselves, and there will be nothing left in the universe but dust and rocks suspended in an endless vacuum. Forever.

Facts Are Stupid Things
The time has come for humanity to take one final look at the empty gains of empirical investigation and utter a collective "fuck that shit". Anyone finding comfort in the morbid litany of dehumanizing revelations brought forth by today's scientific endeavors would have to be psychotic. No more digging, probing, atom-splitting, mixing chemicals, torturing mice, or peering at stars for any purpose other than entertainment: if we as sane human beings are to experience fullfilling, purposeful existences containing any meaning whatsoever, we must reconcile ourselves to living a total lie.

	I agree. (none / 0) (#2)
	by tkatchev on Thu Dec 6th, 2001 at 12:00:13 AM PST

	I agree completely, though you should really make a distinction between two kinds of "happiness" -- the English language is a suprisingly gloomy and pessimistic one, and doesn't have words to describe the different kinds of happiness that other cultures have. In French, for example, there is a large difference between le bonheur and la joie. Both translate roughly into English as "happiness", though for somebody who speaks French the two are completely unrelated concepts. Other European languages make a similar distinction. -- Peace and much love...

	Too easy yet again. (none / 0) (#3)
	by SpaceGhoti on Thu Dec 6th, 2001 at 07:56:36 PM PST

	By your own law, you lose. Or do you care to start debating the definition of "is" next? A troll's true colors.

	I'm sorry. (none / 0) (#4)
	by tkatchev on Thu Dec 6th, 2001 at 08:46:15 PM PST

	I didn't mean to argue over definitions; I merely wanted to point out the cultural context other people in Europe live in. The point is, continental European people think differently, they have a whole different mythology behind the word "happiness", a sort of mystic contentedness and salvation. Some people living in monolingual societies don't realize that people that speak other languages actually think differently. It's not a simple matter of mapping phonemes and lexemes to each other; there is a communication gap here that cannot be taken outside of the cultural context. -- Peace and much love...

	Congratulations (none / 0) (#5)
	by SpaceGhoti on Thu Dec 6th, 2001 at 10:43:55 PM PST

	You've just entered a bigger world. Recognizing that people can think differently is the first step. Accepting that people don't have to speak different languages to have a different understanding is the next one. I'm sure with time and patience you'll learn that, too. When I give you dictionary definitions of words or phrases, I'm letting you know what I mean when I say something, or what it means to me when you say something. If your understanding is different from mine, then I must go to the source (a dictionary is usually considered an "expert" source) to settle the issue. "Liberalist trick" or not, there can be no discussion if there is no common understanding. A troll's true colors.

	You lose. (none / 0) (#6)
	by tkatchev on Fri Dec 7th, 2001 at 01:01:38 AM PST

	You missed the whole point, on a global scale. The point is that words are not congruent to thoughts, and even less related to concepts. Which is why using a dictionary to argue a point is stupid, to say the least. Argue with concepts, not with words. -- Peace and much love...

	Is that so? (none / 0) (#7)
	by SpaceGhoti on Sat Dec 8th, 2001 at 03:19:29 AM PST

	Since when are words not related to concepts? How in the world can you use a word to describe something if you don't have a concept for it? Words are the translation of thoughts in the physical medium of sound. I can say "cold" and have a completely different impression (read: concept) of all things cold than you do. This is why the Eskimos have a couple hundred words to for "snow." A troll's true colors.