# 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:** 3
**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, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/41 "2006-02-14T16:01:19Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > 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? You, on the other hand, fling around insults without actually trying to prove me wrong. How can I have a rational debate with someone who’ll just claim his terms have a special, personalized meaning that just _happen_ to invalidate whatever arguement I’m making. You said : > [@Liberal](#): > > 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 is a bizarre definition of truth. It appears designed to capitalize on the fondness people have for the word “love”, while meaning something completely different. Why didn’t you pick a different word for your . . . special . . . definition, like “truck” ? The statement “I defined trucks as the facilitation of goodness” would make just as much sense. Of course, then people wouldn’t think you were argueing something profound. ---
**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, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/42 "2006-02-14T16:12:01Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Second, a definition and a premise are not the same thing. I never indicated that a definition and a premise are the same thing, but your argument has your definition of love as a premise. > [@](#): > > A definition is not a truth bearer, and does not make any sort of logical implication. Never said it did. > [@](#): > > And finally, the definition of love given is familiar to anyone who has studied Christian theology I have studied Christian theology (as an elective, not as a major), as an undergrad, at a world-class institution, and this definition is not familiar to me. Since I am a member of the set “anyone,” your premise is thus disproven. ---
**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, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/43 "2006-02-14T17:22:51Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Love without truth cannot ascend the heights of it’s potential. Suppose you have a daughter and suppose you know where she is. Now, a man comes to your door, introduces himself as a serial rapist, and asks, “Sir, where is your daughter now?” Is your love for your daughter diminished in any way by lying to him? ---
**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, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/44 "2006-02-14T17:25:01Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Of course, then people wouldn’t think you were argueing something profound. 😃 My dear young man, here’s your little shovel. Go back out an play. ---
**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, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/45 "2006-02-14T17:32:38Z")
> [@Walter Windchill](#): > > I never indicated that a definition and a premise are the same thing, but your argument has your definition of love as a premise. If a definition and a premise are not the same thing, then how is it possible that a definition is a premise? There are two arguments made in the OP. The premise of the first is “there exists truth without love” The premise of the second is “there exists love without truth”. A simple modus tollens is then applied to examine the veracity of each. Neither premise is a definition. > [@](#): > > I have studied Christian theology (as an elective, not as a major), as an undergrad, at a world-class institution, and this definition is not familiar to me. Since I am a member of the set “anyone,” your premise is thus disproven. “Love seeks opportunity to do good to all men.” — \*Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words \* ---
**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, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/46 "2006-02-14T17:38:20Z")
> [@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. One can also have a truth that is not loving, so what? What good has a man done when he walks up to a woman on the subway and says, “Madam, yours is truly the ugliest face I’ve ever seen.”? ---
**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, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/47 "2006-02-14T17:57:19Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > If a definition and a premise are not the same thing, then how is it possible that a definition is a premise? I did not say they were mutually exclusive. > [@](#): > > There are two arguments made in the OP. The premise of the first is “there exists truth without love” The premise of the second is “there exists love without truth”. A simple modus tollens is then applied to examine the veracity of each. Neither premise is a definition. Your own words: > [@](#): > > the first philosophical discipline is to define terms. In the post to which Monavis responded, I defined love as the facilitation of goodness… The rest of your argument follows explicitly from that definition. I don’t need to tell you that; you wrote it. > [@](#): > > “Love seeks opportunity to do good to all men.” — \*Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words \* That doesn’t make “something that seeks an opportunity to do good to all men” a workable definition of love, any more that we can define love as “something that lies bleeding,” because of the Elton John song. Tell me if merely avoiding the confusing definition of love does serious injury to this conclusion? > [@](#): > > Now, let us say that there exists [goodness] 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: [goodness] is above truth. I think it stands up pretty well, and avoids unneccessary bickering. ---
**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, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/48 "2006-02-14T18:11:46Z")
The bickering is unecessary altogether, as the contributions of Tevildo, Sentient, Cosmosdan, and Monavis have demonstrated. The OP is not an argument; it’s an OP. I’ve identified for you the two logical arguments it contains — which, inexplicably, you denied and then confirmed. All arguments should have their terms defined, but the definitions are not themselves a part of any argument. That’s why Euclid offered his definitions before his premises. Honestly, if you are hell bent on having a debate about what constitutes an argument, how definitions can be premises, and the like, please have at it, but elsewhere if you don’t mind. ---
**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, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/49 "2006-02-14T18:12:14Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > 😃 My dear young man, here’s your little shovel. Go back out an play. I think some of us are just striving for clarity and purpose in this discussion, and it would be better to respond with clarity and purposes instead of splitting hairs and being condescending. You mention in the OP that the potential for “gamemanship” in the discussion is extremely high. I took this as a cautionary note, but perhaps it was a challenge. ---
**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, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/50 "2006-02-14T18:20:09Z")
The “challenge” is to debate whether love (in the Christian sense) can exist independently of truth. I invite you to take on the challenge whenever it is convenient for you. ---
**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, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/51 "2006-02-14T18:32:27Z")
Liberal, I am sorry I had the gall to agree with you about 30 posts ago. I humbly exit this debate and seek out friendlier fora. - Walter P.S. as for love and truth, it’s a tie. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/52 "2006-02-14T18:51:36Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > You, on the other hand, fling around insults without actually trying to prove me wrong. How can I have a rational debate with someone who’ll just claim his terms have a special, personalized meaning that just _happen_ to invalidate whatever arguement I’m making. > > That is a bizarre definition of truth. It appears designed to capitalize on the fondness people have for the word “love”, while meaning something completely different. Why didn’t you pick a different word for your . . . special . . . definition, like “truck” ? The statement “I defined trucks as the facilitation of goodness” would make just as much sense. Of course, then people wouldn’t think you were argueing something profound. Okay, look, this is how formal philosophical debate works, at least in the myriad classes I’ve taken involving philosophy and symbolic/formal logic: **Liberal** has set up an argument here. It consists of a definition and some conclusions reached by reasoning from that definition. You have two avenues for arguing it–you can argue that his definition is not valid, or that his logic is not valid. Clearly you intend to do the former–is it too much to ask that you do so politely? Words are just markers for ideas, they are not ideas themselves. When someone says “I defined love as the facilitation of goodness”, getting bent out of shape about the word “love” is as nonsensical as getting annoyed with someone for writing x^2 = y^2 + z^2 instead of a^2 + b^2 = c^2 --the variables are just symbols for a value, even if the variables are words and the value is a definition. ---
**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, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/53 "2006-02-14T19:20:18Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > 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:It implies that my opinion isn’t worthy, because his opinion is inescapable. I find that neither challenging nor stimulating, only annoying. I see your point. I take that statement only as a matter of form because of the being in GD rather than a dismissal of any other opinion. It means “if you don’t agree then let’s have a go at it” rather than “i don’t care about your opinion at all” Maybe I’m wrong. I do agree that if the posts continued in the feeling you sugest I would quickly lose interest in particpating. ---
**Author:** ![barracuda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e19b73/32.png) [@barracuda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barracuda)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/54 "2006-02-14T21:05:38Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Suppose you have a daughter and suppose you know where she is. Now, a man comes to your door, introduces himself as a serial rapist, and asks, “Sir, where is your daughter now?” Is your love for your daughter diminished in any way by lying to him? You’ve destroyed your argument here, as I see it. Knowing a “truth” does not make it necessary to divulge it. If you know a guy is a serial rapist (truth), you don’t reveal your daughter’s location (love). Example: Buddy says, “I’m dyin’ for a candy bar.” You procure same for him (goodness, er, love). Buddy dies of insulin shock. You didn’t know he was diabetic. The desire to commit ‘goodness’ (IMHO), needs to be laid on a framework of truth. As I said, IMO. 'Cuda ---
**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, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/55 "2006-02-14T21:15:23Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Okay, look, this is how formal philosophical debate works, at least in the myriad classes I’ve taken involving philosophy and symbolic/formal logic: > > **Liberal** has set up an argument here. It consists of a definition and some conclusions reached by reasoning from that definition. You have two avenues for arguing it–you can argue that his definition is not valid, or that his logic is not valid. > > Clearly you intend to do the former–is it too much to ask that you do so politely? Words are just markers for ideas, they are not ideas themselves. When someone says “I defined love as the facilitation of goodness”, getting bent out of shape about the word “love” is as nonsensical as getting annoyed with someone for writing x^2 = y^2 + z^2 instead of a^2 + b^2 = c^2 --the variables are just symbols for a value, even if the variables are words and the value is a definition. Thanks for contributing that. I did invite people objecting to the terms to discard both “love” and “truth” and discuss “X” and “Y” instead. That entire hijack, which you have adroitly analyzed, is like jumping into a discussion about baseball and protesting that a pitcher can be a vessel for holding liquid and that therefore the discussion about baseball makes no sense. ---
**Author:** ![barracuda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e19b73/32.png) [@barracuda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barracuda)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/56 "2006-02-14T21:19:51Z")
> [@barracuda](#): > > You’ve destroyed your argument here, as I see it. > > Knowing a “truth” does not make it necessary to divulge it. > > 'Cuda I think I want amend myself here. Instead of truth, I think ‘knowledge’ should be the word used; i.e., you have knowledge that this guy is a serial rapist, you probably don’t know the truth. 'Cuda ---
**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, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/57 "2006-02-14T21:27:59Z")
> [@barracuda](#): > > You’ve destroyed your argument here, as I see it. > > Knowing a “truth” does not make it necessary to divulge it. > > If you know a guy is a serial rapist (truth), you don’t reveal your daughter’s location (love). > > Example: > > Buddy says, “I’m dyin’ for a candy bar.” You procure same for him (goodness, er, love). Buddy dies of insulin shock. You didn’t know he was diabetic. > > The desire to commit ‘goodness’ (IMHO), needs to be laid on a framework of truth. > > As I said, IMO. > > 'Cuda On the contrary, you have made my argument and destroyed the one you intended to make. 🙂 The OP states unequivocally that claims about truth are epistemic in nature, and that a truth is something known or not known. That definition was taken from the post in the other thread that the OP quoted. (For purposes of this discussion, we’re setting aside the fact that there are many truth theories and are accepting the one offered by Monavis.) Precisely because truth is epistemic, you cannot know whether what you did for your buddy was a good thing or a bad thing, even though he died of insulin shock. You do not know, for example, that had you failed to give him your candy bar, he might have been kidnapped by terrorists that evening and tortured non-stop for thirty days and nights until he died — a fate far worse. Moreover, withholding the truth from the serial rapist does nothing more than cloud the epistemological waters. You could just as easily protect your daughter by answering him with a shotgun, and in the process possibly save the lives of other girls. As defined, truth is nothing more than the fabric of reality. It is, as Monavis said, what is. Love, on the other hand, is the conduit by which reality is created, if we define goodness as that aesthetic which edifies. Thus, in a very real way, love _creates_ truth. ---
**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, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/58 "2006-02-14T21:37:49Z")
> [@barracuda](#): > > I think I want amend myself here. > > Instead of truth, I think ‘knowledge’ should be the word used; i.e., you have knowledge that this guy is a serial rapist, you probably don’t know the truth. > > 'Cuda Dang. If I’d seen that on preview, I could have saved some typing. Again we agree. The man might have lied to you, and not be a serial rapist at all. The question really isn’t at all about what you know, but about what you value. It is a question of aesthetics rather than epistemology. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/59 "2006-02-14T22:51:20Z")
Is truth exciting? And new? If not, it’s love all the way. [sub]…and it won’t hurt any more…[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2006, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273/60 "2006-02-15T00:57:02Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Suppose you have a daughter and suppose you know where she is. Now, a man comes to your door, introduces himself as a serial rapist, and asks, “Sir, where is your daughter now?” Is your love for your daughter diminished in any way by lying to him? Huh? Why not just go for the Jews in the attic and Nazi’s example? You know better than that. My love for my daughter of course makes me want to protect her whenever I can. Even if that means lying when I see no other possible means or under the pressure of having to make a quick choice. My love for myself makes me strive to be truthful. My wanting to understand and live “love thine enemy” makes me want that too. In the scenario you’ve suggested I assume that I know or at least suspect that this person presents some danger to my daughter. The truthful answer would be. " I’m not going to tell you that" maybe with a polite “I don’t trust you” and a heavily implied threat. This seems more a test of love than truth to me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love-and-truth/344273.md?page=4)