There is the saying that, “truth hurts” But does it really? In most cases, is it really the “truth” of a matter that hurts or just the matter itself that has had the potential to hurt? Of course you have to know the truth of the matter to really know the matter, but isn’t it still just the matter of what has happened that hurts, not the “fact” of the matter?

Hmm, not sure how much we dredge out of analyzing a common aphorism like this, but let’s see. I think it is knowledge of a truth one would prefer not to acknowledge that causes pain. Your spouse cheatikng on you doesn’t cause any bad feelings in you if you don’t know about it. Now as a semi-buddhist, I would say the deeper truth is that your expectations and desires and false understanding of the nature of the self cause the pain. Knowing your spouse has cheated on you hurts because you desire and expect sexual exclusivity and feel that the lack of it somehow harms the “self” that lives inside you somewhere. I’m not sure you can look at the “truth” of a fact as somehow separate from the fact itself, but your knowledge of the truth of something is really what I think the saying is about.

You reminded me of something else. Like Buddhists, I think that “attachment” is the source of suffering. So in this case, when something happens, and it does not match ones expectations, or is different then how one thinks things ought to be, it is not the “truth” of the matter that cause them pain, it is their preconceived ideas of how they think things ought to be. When things do not happen like one thinks things ought to happen, this causes the pain.

So can the “truth” of a matter ever be the cause of pain I wonder? I’m thinking not.

While i tend to agree that the attachment issue is a big part of why we suffer, I still am not sure I understand what you mean by the “truth” of the matter? How are you defining this? How is it distinct from “the matter” itself? It seems as if you are saying that the quality of being true or factually correct is not itself a cause of suffering. I guess I’m not sure that’s really what the phrase means anyway, but I’m unclear on the distinction you seem to be making here.

mckenzievmd - 06 April 2008 10:10 AM

While i tend to agree that the attachment issue is a big part of why we suffer, I still am not sure I understand what you mean by the “truth” of the matter? How are you defining this? How is it distinct from “the matter” itself? It seems as if you are saying that the quality of being true or factually correct is not itself a cause of suffering. I guess I’m not sure that’s really what the phrase means anyway, but I’m unclear on the distinction you seem to be making here.

You can scratch that quote, I just threw that in there since it seemed related. My real concern was the rest of what I queried.

I’ll try to clarify or even maybe expose my own possible misunderstanding. (after I get back from taking my son to soccer practice.)

I think the truth only hurts when you deny it or are in (knowing or unknowing) opposition to it.  The magnitude of it’s “hurtfulness” will depend on the degree to which your beliefs were in contradiction to the truth. hehe

the conclusion of those aruond me is they could not see the truth if they were cloaked in it. after all how can you look for something as a group if your oppinion differs from your coworker of the company. i as a christan do not condone what is said as truth by a scientist who allows unethical behavior. also the ones whom say they are christans to perform transcending only to run a social experiment on any one, after all to climb up someother way only to pilage or change anothers opp because you are told its to much truth. I always here of those that run this is they are above the truth. simply because they can make their (rabbit in the hat if you will) do whatever they channel them to do this is of course absurd. And you cant say in your defense things happen only to cover up the fact that you broke the code in the first place.

morgantj - 05 April 2008 10:02 PM

There is the saying that, “truth hurts” But does it really? In most cases, is it really the “truth” of a matter that hurts or just the matter itself that has had the potential to hurt? Of course you have to know the truth of the matter to really know the matter, but isn’t it still just the matter of what has happened that hurts, not the “fact” of the matter?

Bearing in mind the aforesaid issue with (over) analyzing aphorisms, there is something interesting here.

If a mother wants her family to be happy and has just spoken to them and they honestly say they are, via phone, where they are on holiday, then she is justified in being satisfied that her desire is being fulfilled. Then after the call her family has an accident, with various injuries and deaths. She does not know this and remains happy and satisfied, even though her desire is no longer being fulfilled or is even being thwarted. In this case when she finds out or is told the facts of the matter - truth or facts about whether her desire is being fulfilled or not, it probably “hurts”, that is she is no longer satisfied and is likely very unhappy as well as worried etc.

Now I am not sure about what you mean by your quoted “truth” in your above statement, since there appear to be two “truths” here. If truth-a is the correspondence between a statement and the facts and she has been given such an accurate statement of the state of affairs, then this changes her beliefs over truth-b - that her desire is being fulfilled - with this new belief she knows it is no longer being fulfilled. Aha! Now I can see an answer. Breaking up your original quote:
“or just the matter itself that has had the potential to hurt?”. without her desire or a different one relating to this state of affairs, truth-a it does not matter
“ is it really the “truth” of a matter that hurts “ I think this refers to truth-b, if so then it is this that “hurts” - since it is on this that her state of (dis)satisfaction depends.
That is, to answer your last question, the “fact” of the matter means the state of affairs independent of, certainly her, desires and beliefs. Knowledge of this fact changes her beliefs and indeed her beliefs are dependent on knowing the facts. That is it looks like it is the epsitemic details rather than ontological details that cause the hurt?