Well someone who values the truth would be able to answer fairly quickly. Yes, even if it destroys my world view, I want to now how things really are, not how I think they are.
The only problem with this philosophical argument is that valuing the truth is a world view as well. If it is argued that there is no value in any particular worldview, then there is no reason to value the truth over valuing lies. As I wrote before, this is better fleshed out and argued by philosophers like Thomas Nagel.
You”Well someone who values the truth would be able to answer fairly quickly. Yes, even if it destroys my world view, I want to now how things really are, not how I think they are.”
Others have responded to you better than my poor talents permit, so I’ll be brief. What you propose (I don’t say ‘favor’ or ‘advocate’ because your intellectual reasons don’t really matter in this context) excludes the possibility of either ‘value’ or ‘truth.’ In a meaningless universe (if by ‘pointless’ you have something other than meaningless in mind, please elaborate) neither ‘value’ nor ‘truth’ would exist, even as concepts. Come to think of it, it’s not at all clear to me how the idea ‘concept’ could function in a meaningless universe or what purpose it would serve (how can a purpose be served in a universe that has no purpose?). Elsewhere in this thread we have witnessed discussions referencing “the wrecking ball of nihilism.” It strikes me that the issue you raise (again, I don’t say ‘favor’ or ‘advocate’) is a pretty good example, and that the destructive ‘wrecking ball’ you’re slinging around is a fair-sized one at that.
In an earlier message I was struggling without success to recall a fallacy that fits the message you’ve been attempting to convey on this issue. At my age, I seem to experience the occasional ‘senior moment’ and a particular idea will refuse to come storming immediately to the forefront, but sometime during the night it manages to sneak up on me.
The fallacy is called “The Fallacy of the Stolen Concept,” first proposed and described by Nathaniel Branden in January of 1963 (so far as I know – it may have been introduced and discussed in earlier lectures or talks). The fallacy is defined by Branden as follows: “the act of using a concept while ignoring, contradicting or denying the validity of the concepts on which it logically and genetically depends.”
In these present days, we might be inclined to use the term ‘hijacked’ in the place of ‘stolen’ to more aptly describe what you propose, but, either way, I think Branden’s description of what you’re doing is dead-on: hijacking a concept(s) while denying the concept(s) upon which it logically and genetically depends. Further, it strikes me that you appear to find a virtue in embracing a pointless existence which would, itself, render the idea ‘virtue’ non-existent.