Finally, And By Special Request;

[Khandro]

Is a non-provable 'untruth' that makes a person happy, and gives a sense of well-being, not better than a non-provable 'truth' that makes a person feel unhappily jejune?
(please note the words untruth and truth are in quotation marks.)

[naomi24]

Khandro, but your answers aren’t valid. The first is completely inaccurate, the second avoids addressing the issue you’ve been talking about, and the third goes nowhere near to offering an answer to the question you were asked. All three of your responses are cop-outs.

[ll_billym]

I am sorry but I just don't see why you have a problem with me using God as an example of a non-provable that 'makes a person happy'. Could you explain why this does not 'fit your bill' as it were?

It seems like you are intentionally finding ways to invalidate the answers you have been given - which unfortunately is depressingly familiar on here but you did seem better than this at the beginning.

[Khandro]

ll_billym ; I have no problem with you using God as an example, as long as you explain what you mean by it.

[naomi24]

This is actually rather naughty of Khandro. The last time he and I discussed this, which was very recently, I asked him to provide an example of a ‘non-provable truth’, and this was what he said.

//If you want an example, I will say that I believe that God (which I really CAN'T define!) probably exists, and this statement is therefore a non-provable 'truth' to me.//

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Society-and-Culture/Religion-and-Spirituality/Question1203532-2.html

[Khandro]

The question is not about, and should not be reduced to; 'does God exist or not', but, 'Which would you prefer to be, Voltaire's, troubled, unhappy Brahmin, or his untroubled, happy, washerwoman?'.

[ll_billym]

This is just getting silly now, ruling out my answers because I used 'God' as an example - saying that it reduces the question - then in the next breath saying that there are only two answers, those being the potential world-views of some washerwoman and a Brahmin whatever that is.

You have reduced the question - or at best are now attempting to invalidate peoples answers based on arbitrary whims not expressed originally. If you meant all this then you should have put it in your original question.

Good question though but I am OUT.

[Khandro]

^It's strange how it seems there is always something wrong with the question.
If you are interested here is my link once again.
http://www.online-literature.com/voltaire/4411/
//Good question though but I am OUT.// That is a pity, but of course the whole of AB is voluntary.

[naomi24]

Khandro, you’re all over the place with this – jumping from one thing to another – and, as I demonstrated, you introduced God to the discussion.

//'Which would you prefer to be, Voltaire's, troubled, unhappy Brahmin, or his untroubled, happy, washerwoman?'//

Neither. I can’t imagine myself in either situation. Unlike the Brahmin (who actually doesn't seem too smart to me), I have never regretted seeking to educate myself, it has never made me unhappy, and I would never consider it wasted time - and unlike the old lady, I am not ignorant.

With regard to your original question, since Voltaire’s old lady wasn’t capable of considering the wonky concept of ‘non-provable truths’, I don’t think this story is a good illustration of what you’re asking – which as far as I can tell is ‘is self-delusion bliss?’ Had you omitted the ‘non-provable truths and untruths’ bit, the story would have fitted and you could have simply asked ‘is ignorance bliss?’ – but you didn’t.

[goodlife]

It is foolish to call real what is not real, because to be honest at all times may have its price, but the clean conscience that results is worth far more than anything it may cost in the long run.

Oh, the joys of those who trust the LORD,
who have no confidence in the proud
or in those who worship idols. ( Psalm 40:4)

[naomi24]

Goodlife, //It is foolish to call real what is not real//

Best you stop doing it then.

[Khandro]

naomi; If I had wanted to ask ‘is ignorance bliss?’ I would have done so. Ignorance per se does not necessarily bring bliss, many ignorant people are troubled and unhappy. There is though one great advantage to being ignorant (as is the washerwoman) and that is the possibility to remove the ignorance by learning. Whereas the learn-ed (as is the Brahmin) cannot unlearn what is making him troubled.

[naomi24]

Khandro, So the story isn't pertinent to your question then - which is what I said. You are actually talking about people who are in denial. And around we go ...... again.

[Khandro]

naomi; // You are actually talking about people who are in denial.// Which people?

[naomi24]

Khandro, clearly those who aren't in denial. Stop being awkward.

[goodlife]

Naomi@ Are you in denial then?

[Khandro]

n.; I have spoken of no one throughout this thread who are 'in denial'. Everyone mentioned believes in something, even though they cannot prove it to be true, or they simply are what they are.

[naomi24]

Khandro, //Everyone mentioned believes in something, even though they cannot prove it to be true//

I don’t know who you mean by ‘Everyone mentioned’ – but that aside, that is precisely the point. Believing that the wonky concept of a ‘non-provable truth/untruth’ is actually a logical proposition is tantamount to denial. I repeat, if you don’t know, the only rational thing you can say is you don’t know.

Goodlife, since you persist in believing that provable truths are untrue, your affliction is rather more severe.

[Khandro]

n; //Believing that the wonky concept of a ‘non-provable truth/untruth’//
As usual you have got it wrong, the parenthesis should be of the word [truth] only,and not include non-provable. As I have said previously it means a so called' truth, which is believed in. Why can you not understand this I wonder.

[naomi24]

Khandro, //Why can you not understand this I wonder.//

Because it’s nonsense. Why can’t you understand that a so called ‘truth’, with or without parenthesis, cannot, under any circumstances, be rationally considered truth?

[Khandro]

n. If John believes X to be true, it may, or it may not be objectively true, but he believes it is true, and so for John X is 'true'.
Where do you have a problem with that?