Live Out the Entire Truth

Originally, I had in mind titling this 'Live Out the Half-Truth'.

Let's not talk about truth, (not even an intersubjective one as Habermas does), let's speak about persuasiveness.

There are, most possibly, certain principles of persuasiveness - determining what is more and what is less persuasive/convincing. These principles can be the cause of virtually universal persuasions/convictions - in the fields of mathematics, logic, probability theory or rationality. Persuasive? It is possible to admit this is true? I would think so..

Belief is sensible only as a belief in persuasiveness (notice: persuasiveness~truth). In convincing arguments. "Because of Golden cow" is, unfortunately, not any longer a convincing argument in today's society. A belief that acting pro-socially is meaningful is, after disclosing some agrument of game theory, much more convincing. It would be interesting to trace the evolution of principles of persuasiveness throughout history. Anropology? Or Foucaults 'history of madness'?

Agnosticism and relativism are based on the knowledge (conviction-belief) of the impossibility of absolute persuasiveness. A little paradox, indeed (conviction about the impossibility of conviction). Gödel proved in 1931 that no logical system can be both consistent as well as complete at the same time (with his second theorem, however, he proved that an inconsistent logical system can prove everything, even itself being right - I call this 'interpretation (of the world)'). Then, only a half-truth is possible, and that can not fulfill one entirely, for there remains always a space for doubt (not being convinced). Itentity - in sense of identity of thoughts, feelings and action - can no longer exist. Belief in (otherwise) half-truth (in what is right or wrong, for example) can, however, have a great meaning in specific period's of one's life, even thought it can change 180% (i.e. from yes to no) degrees over time. That will most probably be the fundamental and final status of self-reflection in the general theory of evolution.

It makes no sense, however, to doubt about the core of oneseld. Okay, it might make, from a longer-term perspective (learning effects, weakness of will, metapreferences). In a static analysis, and we truly do live only in the present, however, it really makes no sense. The world does not necessarily have to be true, because it might be fake (made-up). Feelings, however, have to be true because they can never be possibly fake - they are us and we are them. Alienation from emotions would be distancing from the very oneself, from life (see the identity problem above). After "i think hence i am" comes the "i feel hence i am", "i am hence i feel" (equivalence).

So please live the entire truth, you are the truth, live out emotions, convictions if you are convinced about them, and live out also doubt - because if there is doubt, it is part of yourself and so it is true. It is true because it is convincing - it would be unconvincing to believe that doubts, if you have them, are untrue, unconvincing/incommunicable.