It's simple, if we assume people usually choose between extremes, they can choose between not believing almost anything they're told, and believing almost everything they're told. While both extremes are horrible there is a rationale behind each of them, an empirical formula that can help you decide which to choose. When you don't believe everything, judging by the ratio of lies to truth, you can be right about a the thousand lies you reject and wrong about the single truth you reject along the way. When you believe everything, you're wrong about lies and correct about the truth.
The alternative is simple, either be right about all lies you reject and risk rejecting the few truths that come across your way, or risk being wrong about all the lies you accept and be certain of truths you accept.
In a way those who don't dare believe anything cannot take the risk and for this, they are rewarded of not being wrong most of the time, but the real question is, does truth deserve the risk? If we don't dare to reach the truth, what should we dare for?
1 comment:
i find myself belonging to those who take the risk of believing everything!
my rationale was, "why would people choose not to tell the truth"!! yeah, sort of naive, and got me disappointed quite a number of times... but i think the truth IS worth it...
in a sense it's like either believing that all people are bad or all people are good; if you choose the first you'd probably be right more often than you'd be wrong and vice versa... but it is worth all the disappointments when you're actually right about good people!
Post a Comment