General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIntellectual Honesty in the era of Social Media and memes.
Do people let their intellectual honesty slip for the quick high of a laugh based on falsities?
Believe it or not, intellectual honesty is quite a hot topic in Philosophy and has been for the last several hundred years, if not longer.
The modern German Philosopher Thomas Metzinger said:
Intellectual honesty means simply not being willing to lie to oneself. It is closely related to old-fashioned values such as propriety, integrity and sincerity, to a certain form of inner decency. Perhaps one could say that it is a very conservative way of being truly subversive. But intellectual honesty might at the same time also be exactly what representatives of organized religions and theologians of any type simply cannot have, even if they would like to make claims to the contrary. Intellectual honesty means not pretending to know or even to be able to know the unknowable while still having an unconditional will to truth and knowledge, even where self-knowledge is involved and even where self-knowledge is not accompanied by pleasant feelings or is not in accordance with the received doctrine."
But the topic goes back so much farther.
Immanuel Kant:
In the Metaphysics of Morals (1797), he put this point concisely and clearly: . . . mans duty to himself regarded merely as a moral being . . . is . . . truthfulness. At this point, Kant can also explain what intellectual dishonesty is, namely a kind of inner lie. For Kant, dishonesty is simply a lack of conscientiousness. Lacking conscientiousness in the ethical sense of inner action is nothing other than a form of unconsciousness, a lack of awarenessa further, interesting connection not only to the spiritual stance, but also to the history of the concept of consciousness in the occidental tradition.
Friedrich Nietzsche:
Intellectual honesty is the conscience behind the conscience. In 1883, he wrote in Zarathustra: Where my honesty ceases I am blind and also want to be blind. But where I want to know, I also want to be honest, namely venomous, rigorous, vigorous, cruel and inexorable. Nietzsche was one of the first philosophers to really write about intellectual honesty, about conscientiousness of the mind as an ethics of cognitive action more narrowly conceived. It is interesting to note that, once more, this involves a certain form of asceticism, of letting go. For Nietzsche, intellectual honesty is the culmination and last virtue of the Greco-Christian history of ideas, because it leads to the self-annihilation of the religious-moral interpretation of the will to truth.
William Kingdon Clifford summed it up nicely.
1) It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.
2) At any time, at any place, and for every person it is wrong to ignore or carelessly reject the relevant evidence for ones own beliefs.
Ocelot II
(115,872 posts)Yes, and that goes for us, too.
And also, at any time, at any place, and for every person it is wrong to ignore or carelessly reject the relevant evidence for ones own beliefs. That's what's called confirmation bias. We shouldn't be doing that, either.
It is absolutely crucial to double-check facts and sources, and not to believe or pass on any unverified material just because we want it to be true.
WarGamer
(12,485 posts)If people led a fact based existence? Organized religion wouldn't exist... I hate to say.
Interesting that the practice of "intellectual honesty" in much of history would find one at the end of a rope or in a pyre...
Ocelot II
(115,872 posts)I'll take some organized religions over Fox, since at least some of them are sincere and do good work, while Fox, using blatant falsehoods, cynically exploits the stupid and bigoted for advertising revenue.
WarGamer
(12,485 posts)How often is Reuters quoted here?
Not very...
Because they don't write "entertaining stories"... they're too "facty"
And YES, expanding on your "exploiting the stupid"...
I think that's legit. How many people are willing to learn enough to actually understand a news story? That's when a Sean Hannity comes on TV and Repub-splains it to you.
ShazamIam
(2,575 posts)of dishonest thinking is in the problem of certainty required for religious thought, and something, a need for a belief in certainty and absolutes, even as physics continues the movement away from ideas and beliefs based in certainty and absolutes.
Thank goodness for the William Kingdon Clifford summary. It is more than nice it is a necessity.
Edit add: The physicists are telling us it is all about possibilities, all of it.
Ohio Joe
(21,764 posts)I pretty much never care about intellectual honesty in my entertainment... Which humorous memes fall under for me.