Truth and Optimism, or Pessimism

To begin, I would like to disagree a bit with the previous post. She stated that the simple fact of whether or not Iraq actually had weapons of mass destruction was inconsequential because the troops still invaded. While this is a reality and cannot in and of itself be argued, it was important for the public to know that weapons of mass destruction did not exist in that particular location. Without invoking a large political debate involving the abilities of the past administration, knowledge of the mistake is critical because it simply reminds Americans that nothing, perhaps even the knowledge disseminated by their own government, is infallible. Blind belief is nothing short of ignorance, which is dangerous.

The most interesting part of Chapter 4 to me was page 49. Throughout the reading and discussions in class, I was surprised that truth, as well as belief, was discussed in such a black and white manner. The discussions seemed to ignore the human justification that exists in every judgment made, whether by the lofty philosopher or the lowly college student. As Lynch writes, the "good" of a belief is most often determined when measured against reality, amongst other factors that could include morality, ethics, etc. On pg. 49, he writes that "persons, desires, characters and actions...are most often called morally good or bad. This is because such things are the subject or object of responsibility; that is, they are fit for praise or blame." Enter the so-called grey matter between the black and white of truth and belief. Can we honestly separate truth from morality and ethics? I understand that Lynch attempts to with the Nazi example in the beginning of the chapter, but he seems to agree that no one would value the truth of the temperature at which a human can sustain life in cold water over the lives of the Jews. Thus, does a separation really exist?