# Love and Truth **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 13, 2006, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273 "2006-02-13T14:56:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2006, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/21 "2006-02-13T22:44:24Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > It goes without saying that you may disagree with a premise and thereby discard a conclusion. That does not mean, however, that the argument with which you disagree is illogical. I believe it does. Logic cannot begin with a wholly subjective premise, and reach an objective conclusion. Therefore, the conclusion is subjective as well. The application of logic did nothing to justify the conclusion, and was therefore fallacious. ---
**Author:** ![Walter\_Windchill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Walter\_Windchill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walter_Windchill)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2006, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/22 "2006-02-13T23:25:48Z")
Liberal right that an argument can have faulty premises and be logically sound. I also agree that the premises in this case are highly subjective and arbitrary, and that whatever conclusions we derive are also subjective and arbitrary, but the argument isn’t therefore illogical. Let’s say I open an IP and state that I am defining “tuna fish” as “meat that comes in a tin,” and derive from that premise that spam is made from fish. My argument is of the purest logic: if A then B, A, therefore B. But the premise is shoddy, so the conclusion is shoddy. ---
**Author:** ![Walter\_Windchill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Walter\_Windchill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walter_Windchill)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2006, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/23 "2006-02-13T23:38:17Z")
…but Fear is right that a conclusion is no better than the premises. In this case, I find the definition of love is unsupported, so all that follows is unsupported. Why should we define love as “facilitating goodness”? If it’s goodness you want to talk about, use the word “goodness,” and we can move on. If it’s love you want to talk about, then define it in a way that it will be familiar to most people. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/24 "2006-02-14T07:30:10Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Just because a word has more than one definition — which nearly every word has — does not mean that it has to be abused. I gave a cogent definition of love that I would like to work with here. If you want to discuss love as an emotion, please feel free to open a thread. Making up an oddball definition that tends to deceive others is bad debating and bad philosophising. I might as well redefine “absolute truth” as “my opinion”, and claim that everything I say is absolute truth. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 10:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/25 "2006-02-14T10:02:41Z")
> [@Walter](#): > > Liberal [is] right that an argument can have faulty premises and be logically sound. I think you mean logically [valid](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity). Logical [soundness](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness) _does_ require that the premises be true, rather than merely the conclusion following _if_ they’re true. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/26 "2006-02-14T11:34:43Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > I believe it does. Logic cannot begin with a wholly subjective premise, and reach an objective conclusion. Therefore, the conclusion is subjective as well. The application of logic did nothing to justify the conclusion, and was therefore fallacious. Your beliefs notwithstanding — and setting asid the hypocrisy of expressing your own beliefs after condemning me for expressing mine — it was, as Tevildo hinted at, a very simple reductio. If you have spotted an actual error, then it is time for you to point it out specifically. Muttering generalities about the rules of logic while pointing out no specific violation of them does nothing to advance your argument. Whatever that may be. And if you do decide to apply, you know, actual analysis to the OP, be as demanding of yourself as you are of others, and constrain yourself to formal terms. Don’t complain about how people define terms while you yourself toss around “subjective premise” and “objective conclusion” which have no meaning other than in your own mind. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/27 "2006-02-14T11:44:27Z")
> [@Walter Windchill](#): > > Liberal right that an argument can have faulty premises and be logically sound. I also agree that the premises in this case are highly subjective and arbitrary, and that whatever conclusions we derive are also subjective and arbitrary, but the argument isn’t therefore illogical. > > Let’s say I open an IP and state that I am defining “tuna fish” as “meat that comes in a tin,” and derive from that premise that spam is made from fish. My argument is of the purest logic: if A then B, A, therefore B. But the premise is shoddy, so the conclusion is shoddy. > > [and subsequently] > > …but Fear is right that a conclusion is no better than the premises. In this case, I find the definition of love is unsupported, so all that follows is unsupported. Why should we define love as “facilitating goodness”? If it’s goodness you want to talk about, use the word “goodness,” and we can move on. If it’s love you want to talk about, then define it in a way that it will be familiar to most people. Well, let’s start at the beginning of this: I have never said that an argument can have faulty premises and be logically sound; therefore, I can’t be either right or wrong about it. Second, a definition and a premise are not the same thing. A definition is not a truth bearer, and does not make any sort of logical implication. And finally, the definition of love given is familiar to anyone who has studied Christian theology which was, after all, the topic of the post cited in the OP. But if you simply cannot (for whatever reason) abide love defined this way, then simply call it “X” and call what Monavis defined “Y” and answer whether X is more essential than Y or Y is more essential than X. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/28 "2006-02-14T11:58:52Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Making up an oddball definition that tends to deceive others is bad debating and bad philosophising. I might as well redefine “absolute truth” as “my opinion”, and claim that everything I say is absolute truth. That is in effect what you have done. Notice the difference between your criticisms and Tevildo’s. He identified specific points of what he considered to be weaknesses in the argument, calling them by their proper names, and maintaining a civil bearing. He understood the difference between a definition and a premise, and understood the logical derivation of the conclusion. You, on the other hand, have done nothing more than walk into a dye factory and complain that someone farted. Do you have anything — anything at all — to say with respect to whether love (as defined) needs truth (as defined) to exist? If not, what are you doing here other than satisfying some adolescent compulsion to stir up shit? ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/29 "2006-02-14T12:27:35Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > From [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7098014&postcount=71): > > In responding to this, it occured to me that the potential for semantical gamesmanship is extremely high. Continuing to discuss it there likely would have hijacked Mines’ thread. (You see? Even old dogs like me can learn new things. ;)) > > The semantics involves making substitutions in Monavis’ claim, thus: Without love, truth is not truth. Only love can stand alone. Love is what is; whether it is expressed or not. > > Without the exercise of philosophical discipline, it becomes a chicken/egg question. And the first philosophical discipline is to define terms. In the post to which Monavis responded, I defined love as the facilitation of goodness, and by facilitation, of course, I mean the removal of every possible obstacle. > > That definition puts a stop to any disingenuous and pretentious semantical game because it diffentiates love, as an aesthetical expression, from truth, as an epistemic claim. One is something you do or don’t do based on what is valuable; the other is something you know or don’t know based on what is true. > > The line between us is now clear. For Monavis, truth is uber alles, and for me, love is uber alles. I would say that without love, there can be no truth, and doubtless he would say that without truth, there can be no love. But given our definitions, we can examine the two claims. > > Let us say that there exists truth without love. There exists, therefore, something known or not known, but without any value. It seems to me difficult to hold the argument that something worthless even matters, let alone is above all else. > > Now, let us say that there exists love without truth. There exists, therefore, something valuable, but not knowable. Is it necessary for something to be known for it to be good? One counter-example is sufficient to make the point, of course, but there are in fact many. The comatose patient who is receiving care without any knowledge of what people are doing on his behalf. The recipient of charity who does not know his benefactor. The earthbound creature who does not comprehend just how good God is. And so on. > > The conclusion, therefore, is inescapapable: love is above truth. I will agree to disagree,Love that isn’t in truth is a sham.One can have a false love but not a false truth. Monavis Monavis ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/30 "2006-02-14T12:34:53Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > From [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7098014&postcount=71): > > In responding to this, it occured to me that the potential for semantical gamesmanship is extremely high. Continuing to discuss it there likely would have hijacked Mines’ thread. (You see? Even old dogs like me can learn new things. ;)) > > The semantics involves making substitutions in Monavis’ claim, thus: Without love, truth is not truth. Only love can stand alone. Love is what is; whether it is expressed or not. > > Without the exercise of philosophical discipline, it becomes a chicken/egg question. And the first philosophical discipline is to define terms. In the post to which Monavis responded, I defined love as the facilitation of goodness, and by facilitation, of course, I mean the removal of every possible obstacle. > > That definition puts a stop to any disingenuous and pretentious semantical game because it diffentiates love, as an aesthetical expression, from truth, as an epistemic claim. One is something you do or don’t do based on what is valuable; the other is something you know or don’t know based on what is true. > > The line between us is now clear. For Monavis, truth is uber alles, and for me, love is uber alles. I would say that without love, there can be no truth, and doubtless he would say that without truth, there can be no love. But given our definitions, we can examine the two claims. > > Let us say that there exists truth without love. There exists, therefore, something known or not known, but without any value. It seems to me difficult to hold the argument that something worthless even matters, let alone is above all else. > > Now, let us say that there exists love without truth. There exists, therefore, something valuable, but not knowable. Is it necessary for something to be known for it to be good? One counter-example is sufficient to make the point, of course, but there are in fact many. The comatose patient who is receiving care without any knowledge of what people are doing on his behalf. The recipient of charity who does not know his benefactor. The earthbound creature who does not comprehend just how good God is. And so on. > > The conclusion, therefore, is inescapapable: love is above truth. I will agree to disagree,Love that isn’t in truth is a sham.One can have a false love but not a false truth. Monavis Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/31 "2006-02-14T13:09:23Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Your beliefs notwithstanding — and setting asid the hypocrisy of expressing your own beliefs after condemning me for expressing mine — it was, as Tevildo hinted at, a very simple reductio. I know it is part and parcel of your debating technique to hang yourself on a cross of martyrdom, dear **Liberal** , but I never condemned you for expressing your beliefs. I just pointed out that it was fallacious to present your conclusion as an objective truth when it is solely based on a subjective premise. No one is condemning you; yet. ---
**Author:** ![Walter\_Windchill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Walter\_Windchill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walter_Windchill)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/32 "2006-02-14T13:19:31Z")
Sentient: OK, I meant valid. Liberal: OK, you said a person could _disagree_ with the premises of an argument and not dismiss the conclusion without calling the argument illogical; not that the premise was necessarily _untrue_. The meaning either way is that for a discussion to take place, the premises have to be agreeable to everyone. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/33 "2006-02-14T14:03:06Z")
I gotta say, your response to **Der Trihs** really gave me a chuckle **Lib** thanks. I find this interesting. I’ve refered to love and truth as the essentials of spirituality many times on these boards. Honestly, it never occured to me to ask which of the two is _more_ essentail. Are they seperable when considering spirituality? If you seek one will it inevitably lead to the other? I don’t think in a spiritual context we can look at truth as mere factual statements. Jesus asks us to walk in the truth, and live according to the truth. Then there is the term “true” love. which in my mind is real love rather than all the poor substitutes we inaccurately use the term love for. In the other thread you said reason, judgement, and righteousness fails, but love does not fail. I agree, but I would add that the truth also never fails. Love without truth cannot ascend the heights of it’s potential. Truth without love becomes dead facts rather than something we can walk in and live according to. Jesus also spoke of acts of charity that were done for acclaim and to give the false appearence of goodness. His comment was “they have their reward” meaning that their _true_ intent was what mattered. “What you do unto others you do unto me,” is not just good advice. It is meant as a statement of truth. So, in judging which is more essential, I would say in spiritual terms each is equally essential. In the living water Jesus spoke of at the well, one is hydrogen and the other oxygen. Which is more essentail? Neither. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/34 "2006-02-14T14:20:33Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > I will agree to disagree,Love that isn’t in truth is a sham.One can have a false love but not a false truth. > > Monavis > Monavis Are you serious? False love, means it isn’t love at all doesn’t it? The same as false truth. Except for politics. False truth has become a way of life for them. Again, in spiritual pursuits I consider them essential to each other rather than one more essentail than the other. What we often don’t know or acknowledge in our actions or the actions of others, is the true intent of the heart and mind. It is that true intent, even when it isn’t acknowledged, that sets our course sends out into the world what will return to us. Jesus asks that that intent be love. Can we love sincerely and to the full extent that Jesus spoke of without any understanding of the truth. Even if we only have a sense of oneness with others without any intellectual comprehension, it is still an essential truth that facilitates love. Yet if we don’t ever have the courage to act with love, then whatever truth we percieve is inert and useless. Both are essential. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/35 "2006-02-14T14:30:22Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > I know it is part and parcel of your debating technique to hang yourself on a cross of martyrdom, dear **Liberal** , but I never condemned you for expressing your beliefs. I just pointed out that it was fallacious to present your conclusion as an objective truth when it is solely based on a subjective premise. No one is condemning you; yet. Since the entire subject matter is pretty much subjective perhaps pointing out the obvious is a waste of time. Especially to a long time poster who is well aware of it. In subject matter like this I think the IMHO is implied and pointing it out is not much of a contribution. I think **Lib** was asking if you actually wish to make one. I reiterate the question. Do you? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/36 "2006-02-14T14:35:49Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I think **Lib** was asking if you actually wish to make one. I reiterate the question. Do you? Sure, I’ll play. Truth is greater than love. IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/37 "2006-02-14T15:02:26Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > Sure, I’ll play. Truth is greater than love. IMHO. See, that didn’t hurt a bit did it? Care to elaborate why you believe this to be true? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/38 "2006-02-14T15:22:43Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > See, that didn’t hurt a bit did it? > > Care to elaborate why you believe this to be true? I could, but it just be expanding on my opinion. Would it really make it more persuasive? Perhaps if I threw in some Latin, or words like “ontological” or “epistemology” you would find it impressive? That is the problem with these so-called debates; ultimately, there is nothing to hang your position on beyond IMHO, because it is all subjective. Some people take a lot of words to get there, and some pretend it can be supported with logic, but all arrive at the same place. IMHO. And that was what I was pointing out in \*\*Lib’s \*\* OP. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/39 "2006-02-14T15:34:24Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > I could, but it just be expanding on my opinion. Would it really make it more persuasive? Perhaps if I threw in some Latin, or words like “ontological” or “epistemology” you would find it impressive? That is the problem with these so-called debates; ultimately, there is nothing to hang your position on beyond IMHO, because it is all subjective. Some people take a lot of words to get there, and some pretend it can be supported with logic, but all arrive at the same place. IMHO. And that was what I was pointing out in \*\*Lib’s \*\* OP. I don’t disagree. It is subjective. We can, if we are so inclined, be challenged and stimulated to explore our own subjective beliefs and perhaps consider someone elses who presents an idea that we hadn’t considered before. So while it is IMHO, it may still prove useful. I don’t agree that an opinion cannot be supported using logic and reason, but hey, that’s more opinion isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/40 "2006-02-14T15:44:16Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I don’t disagree. It is subjective. We can, if we are so inclined, be challenged and stimulated to explore our own subjective beliefs and perhaps consider someone elses who presents an idea that we hadn’t considered before. So while it is IMHO, it may still prove useful. I agree, as a topic of discussion, it can be enlightening. But when the OP concludes with this, it sort of cuts off give and take: > [@Liberal](#): > > The conclusion, therefore, is inescapapable: love is above truth. It implies that my opinion isn’t worthy, because his opinion is inescapable. I find that neither challenging nor stimulating, only annoying. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273.md?page=3)