3 ms·

Is this an Ayn Rand quote out of her novels? It sounds that way but I can’t find it.

by fullmoon 4y ago

actionfromafar 4y ago
Also, where does the ugly truth come in.
- samsquire 4y ago
  I know what you mean but I reject the idea of an ugly truth. I would reject an ugly truth being true but a false thing people accept as being true which is not necessarily true. If you truly reject anything not true good right it becomes easier to avoid degrading words or falling into despair. Said another way, the truth cannot be ugly. So there is no such thing as an ugly truth. Do you agree the truth is beautiful? I think this because true and truth is beautiful. And it cannot be assailed or degraded by ugly or it wouldn't be true. In the same way water wets things, the word ugly doesn't become true by juxtaposition to the word true. There must be a precedence to meaning and you must take your stand. Otherwise everything becomes mud and there is no purity. In other words, if you bring up an ugly truth I would say it was false and reject it as being not true. Light extinguishes darkness. Said another way, if something is an ugly truth then it is the ugliness that is ugly, not the truth. But I would reject it because I reject ugliness.
  - pixl97 4y ago
    I can reject there is no ugly truth on a theoretical basis (though not a practical basis) Lets say you become omniscient and now you know that 7 days from now the universe is going to end in a flash. I mean, that's not great in itself. You think to yourself, I should let everyone know so they can say their goodbyes, but when you do there is a vast amount of human suffering and violence. If you say nothing the world goes on as it does now until its demise. Is the truth beautiful in this theoretical case? I don't believe so, it doesn't give us anything really truly more actionable than we have now (you could die at any time for a multitude of reasons as it is). Of course this is a logical extreme and you can say that most of life is much more in the mud.
    - samsquire 4y ago
      Thank you for your reply and for your understanding of what I say. I would say there are 2 independent separate things: the circumstance or what you are using the word true to refer to. True is a property of what is but is separate word and meaning from what is What is can be ugly. But true the word is not. True is eternal and immune to badness True is what Is truly, that isn't false. The what referant or circumstances are independent of the true. The true is not the same as the what. The what can potentially be outside the true. The what can be ugly. From the word "true" it doesn't refer to what is not true except by duality (opposite) The quality of true is beautiful and always good because it is what is and not what is false. It's not the property of true that is ugly, what is going on is independent of the true. Some thing bad going on is independent from the property of the property that some thing is going on. True refers to the absence of falseness. In other words, the externality of what is going on is going on is beautiful, separate and independent of the not good. Your scenario is unpleasant and not good but the scenario is independent from the idea you can be sure of the truth. Knowing you can be sure of the truth is beautiful even if the referant of the truth is ugly. True cannot be made wet by what it refers to. Said another way, why do people think ugly overrides the beauty of true rather than the other way round, true overrides the beauty of the ugly. It's a precedence thing.

Is this an Ayn Rand quote out of her novels? It sounds that way but I can’t find it.

actionfromafar 4y ago

Also, where does the ugly truth come in.

samsquire 4y ago
I know what you mean but I reject the idea of an ugly truth. I would reject an ugly truth being true but a false thing people accept as being true which is not necessarily true. If you truly reject anything not true good right it becomes easier to avoid degrading words or falling into despair. Said another way, the truth cannot be ugly. So there is no such thing as an ugly truth. Do you agree the truth is beautiful? I think this because true and truth is beautiful. And it cannot be assailed or degraded by ugly or it wouldn't be true. In the same way water wets things, the word ugly doesn't become true by juxtaposition to the word true. There must be a precedence to meaning and you must take your stand. Otherwise everything becomes mud and there is no purity. In other words, if you bring up an ugly truth I would say it was false and reject it as being not true. Light extinguishes darkness. Said another way, if something is an ugly truth then it is the ugliness that is ugly, not the truth. But I would reject it because I reject ugliness.
- pixl97 4y ago
  I can reject there is no ugly truth on a theoretical basis (though not a practical basis) Lets say you become omniscient and now you know that 7 days from now the universe is going to end in a flash. I mean, that's not great in itself. You think to yourself, I should let everyone know so they can say their goodbyes, but when you do there is a vast amount of human suffering and violence. If you say nothing the world goes on as it does now until its demise. Is the truth beautiful in this theoretical case? I don't believe so, it doesn't give us anything really truly more actionable than we have now (you could die at any time for a multitude of reasons as it is). Of course this is a logical extreme and you can say that most of life is much more in the mud.
  - samsquire 4y ago
    Thank you for your reply and for your understanding of what I say. I would say there are 2 independent separate things: the circumstance or what you are using the word true to refer to. True is a property of what is but is separate word and meaning from what is What is can be ugly. But true the word is not. True is eternal and immune to badness True is what Is truly, that isn't false. The what referant or circumstances are independent of the true. The true is not the same as the what. The what can potentially be outside the true. The what can be ugly. From the word "true" it doesn't refer to what is not true except by duality (opposite) The quality of true is beautiful and always good because it is what is and not what is false. It's not the property of true that is ugly, what is going on is independent of the true. Some thing bad going on is independent from the property of the property that some thing is going on. True refers to the absence of falseness. In other words, the externality of what is going on is going on is beautiful, separate and independent of the not good. Your scenario is unpleasant and not good but the scenario is independent from the idea you can be sure of the truth. Knowing you can be sure of the truth is beautiful even if the referant of the truth is ugly. True cannot be made wet by what it refers to. Said another way, why do people think ugly overrides the beauty of true rather than the other way round, true overrides the beauty of the ugly. It's a precedence thing.