"Nietzsche implied that truth is only descriptive and valueless- there are narratives beyond truth that lead to a higher truth."

That sounds like nonsense

"Jung believed that phenomena were holistic."

Phenomena are holistic except when they aren't.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« A dog has faith that the food its master brings is good and not poisoned.

If a stranger brings food, the dog may suspect and refuse to eat it, but when the food is brought by its master, it rings true for the dog that the food is good.

The dog has no proofs, not even a concept of "proof", but without any faith, the dog would starve to death. »
.

I’m not surprised that you believe that Yuyutsu. It seems to be in the nature of much of humanity to hold certain beliefs without proof – is it wishful thinking, ideology, blind faith, … ?

Gullibility and credulity are rampant throughout the world. We see examples of that every day :

• Trump and “the Big Lie” in the US

• Putin and the Special Military Operation against the nazis in Ukraine

Millions of American and Russian citizens as well as many others throughout the world continue to believe those stories.

I’m afraid there’s not much we can do to change that. Never mind, here is the true story about the dogs :

http://www.dogseateverything.com/

http://www.advancedvetnj.com/site/blog/2021/07/28/why-dog-eat-everything

Might I add that I was brought up with a brother and a dog that I always considered to be a second brother? Both are no longer of this world, and I dearly regret them both.

Perhaps you did not have the chance to have a second brother as I did, Yuyutsu.

.

.

Dear Canem Malum, Dear david f.,

.

Nietzsche obviously had a problem with the notion of truth. Just why is a complete mystery. Nobody seems to know.

He is reputed to have been an excellent philologist among his many other competencies, but he never managed to come to grips with the notion of truth :

http://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/nietzsche-as-german-philosopher/nietzsches-concept-of-truth/63FF3E5E16829EA7088889A9CE0623B5

As he was obviously not lacking in intelligence, the only explanation that comes to my mind is that he may possibly have had a psychological problem of some sort, due to childhood traumatism, for example.

For what it is worth, my definition of truth is the sincere expression of each individual’s interpretation of reality.

I see it as purely subjective. Each individual tends to observe reality from behind a veil of ignorance, bias, and prejudice, according to one’s personal aptitudes and experience.

As a result, there are just as many truths as there are individuals – none of which may correspond to reality though many may be the same or very similar.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

«For what it is worth, my definition of truth is the sincere expression of each individual’s interpretation of reality.»

This is a good definition for relative truth.

It is relative to a particular person and to their knowledge at the time, behind, as you say, their veil of ignorance, also relative to their state of being - suppose someone is dreaming that they murdered someone: when they awake they will surely realise that they haven't, but in their dream, are they telling the police that someone else did it? Or what about an intoxicated person who genuinely believes that their friend is a pot-plant?

There are therefore many relative truths, even more than the number of individuals, but there is only one absolute Truth which never changes, which is the same with everyone, in all their states of being: awake, dreaming, intoxicated, in deep dreamless sleep, in a coma or even while dead, which does not depend on anything, including time, yet everything depends on it.

The Absolute Truth cannot have parts or divisions, for they would relate to each other.
The Absolute Truth cannot have properties, for all properties are changeable.
Yet this is the Truth of you and me and everyone else, of existence itself and of everything that exists.
That which depends on nothing yet everything depends on, only that I can refer to as God.

God is a human invention. That particular human invention serves the purpose of making humans think there is an answer where there is no answer. All questions do not have an answer. There is no reason why we are here. We can find out more about the physical processes which led to our being here or anything else being here. There is a joy in finding out about these processes. There is a joy in observing nature, making a living, learning, contributing to and enjoying the arts, but ultimately the only meaning to life is whatever meaning we choose to invent. We invent meanings or accept meanings that other people invent. Some human invented the idea of God. Other humans accept that idea. If thinking that that invention is something other than an invention and makes you happy be happy.

Christians believe that the invented God needs a sidekick so they invented Jesus who may have existed but without the mumbojumbo cited in the New Testament. They invented another sidekick called the Holy Ghost who completes their Trinity. The article I am commenting on calls the belief in these inventions freedom. That freedom is slavery to superstition.

Dear David F.,

God cannot be a human invention, or anyone else's invention for that matter, for the simple reason that all inventions are mortal, all inventions are born and then eventually they die.

«Some human invented the idea of God.»

Well that is very different - actually not just one human and not just one idea of God, many humans did and many different ideas too, and many will still be invented in future too. All these ideas were once invented and will eventually be forgotten.

«There is a joy in finding out about these processes. There is a joy in observing nature, making a living, learning, contributing to and enjoying the arts»

For some there is. Others find joy only in sex while others still find joy in prayer. You should not make such sweeping generalisations.