One of the Basic Questions of Philosophy?

[Stuey]

It is important to think you are right. At least I think so. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

It is not important to be right unless you have to suffer an unbearable amount due to this error. Two variables make this different for each person. The amount of suffering they are capable or willing to endure. The period of time they will suffer for this error must be long enough to be regretted.

Yes I understand the error can be fatal but if it is a quick death I feel it would not be deemed important by the person long enough to be called important by him. As long as the person does not know he is risking losing a large amount of time from his life or a unbearable amount of suffering could befall him while he makes the error it does not matter to him if he is right or wrong. This is why it is important to think you are right but not important to be right.

What should you give up to ensure you are right?

If you know an error will cause great discomfort for a long period of time or you could lose a large period of living time and you deem it important then you should give up just a fraction less than you could possibly bear to do.

It is much more important to be right when a error will effect others imo.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems like everybody is not exactly getting my question. Rephrased. How important is it to be right? What is worth giving up to be right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't understand the question. Maybe an example of what you're getting at would help. Do you know what's "right"? Are you sacrificing something in search for what's right? Have you discovered you were wrong and must give up what you were wrong about because of what you now know it right? Is someone else telling you you are wrong and implying you should give up what they say is wrong to embrace what they say is right? If you come to know something is right how can you not give up that which you now know is wrong? Are you unsure whether the new right thing you've learned really makes the old not right thing obsolete? Do you suspect the old wrong thing you used to think was right still has some right in it that the new right thing does not contradict? Or is this topic just an excuse for Sklansky to one more time tell us what he thinks is right and claim the only reason we don't accept it is because we think it advantageous to hold on to what he has now shown us to be wrong?

PairTheBoard

They way I interpret David's question is how valuable is it to know the "objective" truth. In other words (this is pertinent example I see him asking), someone believes in G-d and because of that acts in a more ethical way then he otherwise would. If we could somehow show him that he is infact wrong and that G-d doesn't exist should we? We know that the pre-suppositions of his entire life are wrong but they result in "Advantageous" behavior.

Is their an intrinsic value to knowing the truth or being right (if the knowing said truth causes you harm)?

IMO no. I see absolutely zero value in being right. I would give up nothing.

[eurythmech]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems like everybody is not exactly getting my question. Rephrased. How important is it to be right? What is worth giving up to be right?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's just down to the individual.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
If it isn't it, I think it probably should be. The question is: Is Cooker right when he posted on another thread

"Many people live under the mistaken belief that being correct is advantagous. This may or may not be the case. I think it is very possible, that certain incorrect views might have an advantage."

[/ QUOTE ]

It is always advantagous to be correct. Wisdom comes with knowing when to apply that knowledge.

[tek]

Being right seems to be important to you. You've explicely stated in many posts that anyone who disagrees with your topic is wrong.

So now you are hedging your bets by stating: "My answer is an in between one which I will get into later."

[Cooker]

Sklansky is quoting me, and I have replied in this thread with specifically what I meant by "advantage" and "correct" with examples.

[David Sklansky]

"They way I interpret David's question is how valuable is it to know the "objective" truth. In other words (this is pertinent example I see him asking), someone believes in G-d and because of that acts in a more ethical way then he otherwise would. If we could somehow show him that he is infact wrong and that G-d doesn't exist should we? We know that the pre-suppositions of his entire life are wrong but they result in "Advantageous" behavior.

Is their an intrinsic value to knowing the truth or being right (if the knowing said truth causes you harm)?"

That's a fair explanation of my question.

In the movie Brradcast News, I was struck by a scene (I may have the deatails wrong) where a lady was by herself at a party and being accosted by a man with the words "it must be nice to always be right whenever you disagree with someone". I believe this happened after she stormed out of a meeting or something like that.

The answer you expected to hear was something like "Oh shut up" or "I don't always think I'm right" or "since I analyze meticulously before I argue it's not surprising I'm right". Instead she said crying, "no its not nice at all".

If being wrong means that someone behaves a lot more ethically or that society is much safer, its probably the better course. But what about if, like the lady in the movie, it would simply mean that your cohorts, who are in fact wrong a lot, like you better. Was that tradeoff worth it?

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
In the movie Brradcast News, I was struck by a scene ...

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds to me like this is your type of woman ... the seemingly strong, intelligent type who occasionally shows a soft, emotional side.

Do you not realize that rationality and womanhood cannot be at high levels simultaneously?

When a strong-willed, seemingly intelligent woman is "right", 95% of the time she's just won a Darwinian battle against a male (or group of males) who feel their energy is better spent conceding the point and moving on to the next question than giving her the deep, intense attention required to prove her wrong.

Her deep disappointment, in turn, is typically caused by her realization that her worth as a woman is not as high as she thought it was, for if it were it would be worth it for the men to give her the attention she craves.

The best way to alleviate this problem imo is to be a strong head of the family yourself, only court women who don't suck away too much energy, and raise your daughter to get used to the idea that her success with men depends on having modest demands on his energy. In other words, she needs to see behaviors in you that reflect what she is likely to experience with the kind of men she will eventually be attracted to.

My apologies for the psycho tangent here, but I see this as much closer to the real issue than any objective question about being right. We all know that outside of situations that lend themselves well to mathematical analysis, we will probably never know whether we are right anyway.

[kbfc]

I remember reading that post, but apparently didn't make the connection. Given your clarification, there is no confusion.

I still, however, get the feeling that David was getting at something else in reposting the question in this thread. It looks like he is trying to address some sort of fundamental question in philosophy. If he did indeed mean it the way you do, it's not really a fundamental question for philosophers......biologists maybe, but not philosophers.