There may be writings that better - and more concisely - reveal the distinction between "truth" and its opposite than this one, but there surely aren't many. As this piece points out well, the boundary between truth and its perceived opposite is often - but to be sure not always - more blurred than we commonly assume. Context, motivation, and the specific group to which we belong may largely determine our perception of much, including "truth." The key is to point out those cases where the boundary line between fact and fiction is not only obvious, but when the fiction is clearly destructive.
The Babbidge quote, "The use of fiction as an instrument of cohesion as an indispensable social tool." is especially perceptive. It has been noted by many that the cohesion of societal groups from families to local communities to global institutions (nations, world religions, etc.) depend on a set of shared beliefs that are necessary for the group to function effectively and to survive. Whether these beliefs are "true" or not is immaterial - the groups' members must necessarily believe them (or at least pretend to believe them). If these beliefs are of ancient groups they are often termed "myths." For more contemporary groups (but not one's own) a more pejorative term might be used. And most of us do this occasionally whether we know - or admit - it or not. Fictions of groups other than our own are easier to spot.
Again, a fine article - worthy of reading more than once.
Thanks to Walter Horn for the link to his fine review of Sophia Rosenfeld's book, "Democracy and Truth." Yours is an excellent review and the book seems well worth finding and reading. Again, thanks.
And as a postscript to my earlier comment: As Kelso's article noted, societal groups depend on shared beliefs (true or not) to exist. It has been noted by more than a few historians that when such groups no longer share those earlier beliefs, those groups (families, nations, empires) are on the decline and their demise fast approaching - not especially comforting to think about.
There are actually some useful writings on this topic. See, for example Lani Watson's recent book on the subject and Sophia Rosenfeld's Democracy and Truth, reviewed here: https://www.3-16am.co.uk/articles/sophia-rosenfeld-democracy-and-truth-a-short-history?c=a-hornbook-of-democracy-book-reviews
There may be writings that better - and more concisely - reveal the distinction between "truth" and its opposite than this one, but there surely aren't many. As this piece points out well, the boundary between truth and its perceived opposite is often - but to be sure not always - more blurred than we commonly assume. Context, motivation, and the specific group to which we belong may largely determine our perception of much, including "truth." The key is to point out those cases where the boundary line between fact and fiction is not only obvious, but when the fiction is clearly destructive.
The Babbidge quote, "The use of fiction as an instrument of cohesion as an indispensable social tool." is especially perceptive. It has been noted by many that the cohesion of societal groups from families to local communities to global institutions (nations, world religions, etc.) depend on a set of shared beliefs that are necessary for the group to function effectively and to survive. Whether these beliefs are "true" or not is immaterial - the groups' members must necessarily believe them (or at least pretend to believe them). If these beliefs are of ancient groups they are often termed "myths." For more contemporary groups (but not one's own) a more pejorative term might be used. And most of us do this occasionally whether we know - or admit - it or not. Fictions of groups other than our own are easier to spot.
Again, a fine article - worthy of reading more than once.
Thanks to Walter Horn for the link to his fine review of Sophia Rosenfeld's book, "Democracy and Truth." Yours is an excellent review and the book seems well worth finding and reading. Again, thanks.
And as a postscript to my earlier comment: As Kelso's article noted, societal groups depend on shared beliefs (true or not) to exist. It has been noted by more than a few historians that when such groups no longer share those earlier beliefs, those groups (families, nations, empires) are on the decline and their demise fast approaching - not especially comforting to think about.