As long as we are in the "memes" answer "B" a lookalike
The search for the truth, which could not be more laudable, presupposes the conviction of not having it...
I would first like to salute this logic in the 1st degree, decalogue that I am going to try to reverse engineer a little, without malice or absolute certainty, we are just talking... Hey...
And although looking more closely, we discover a first rhetorical pirouette which unfolds (which is not necessarily voluntary or harmful in itself) but which is in the clever use of this synonym of "truth" which is "conviction"
Beware of the sophistical cogitation worthy of a tightrope walker that can result from it, because suddenly, if you haven't found it, you haven't held it either to affirm it... And not yet found, here it is that it slips through your fingers by a simple ... paralogical slip (although I still welcome the initial intention, but we are moving away from it...)
Indeed, I never said that:
- this "search for truth
"was an ultimate materialist goal (the implicit aspect no doubt, but which slips away according to compunctions, and which boiled down to saying (for my part) that "I was for a balance of forces east / west"
and not that the "truth" was hidden somewhere in the fogs of the Dnieper). Neither ...
— that looking for her necessarily meant that she would be absent (one can look for her keys in her pockets, without being convinced that she does not have them, as long as they prick the ass or the outer side of the leg, the precise place where the puffiness can hurt, like the shoe, the culpe...
But hey, let's admit! I repeat a chouia: if the truth was a key, and that it was hidden under a carpet (of Western lies or others), that the carpet really exists and that currently the only conviction to have is to correlate the untruths, so that a more tangible "truth" emerges (even if we see it, that of some is not that of others, as I have already said it would be worth an impartial investigation rather than the law of arms). Here, the key is held and finds itself confined in a given space, (the carpet) it is not that it is not held (it is within the limits of the space it occupies in order to have access), here your narrative does not apply, the (intimate) "conviction" is already established by the facts accumulated for a long time, it is the expectation (and alas precise on different aspects: confessions and other observations of deliberate and unilateral withdrawals of treaties/agreements, seizure of power by force, denial of democracy and other premeditations), so it is largely false and depends on the scenario, and alas, what your magnificent aphorism does not demonstrate (and that in this case presumed contrary, conviction is no longer a pre-requisite...) Here again correlated confessions:
In the specific case of spiritual research, "the search for truth
"does not point to its physical materialization, but on an intention to move in a positive, fair and equitable direction...
(my own interpretation which is only worth my humble opinion)
And so sorry, there are several scenarios missing from your bow. By way of example again,you can't prove something that doesn't exist
"(unless fabricating proof like Colin Powell at the UN rostrum with his little vial) in his case, and in the Western clan, one could not presuppose that he was lying, except to transgress the ultimate taboo, which consists in unbolting the sanctification of the "camp of good"
holding the truth superior to any other, as the ultimate reason to go and sacrifice one's life for the fatherland, um... Like to bow down to "harmless vax, to inject absolutely to protect others
"... Not truth but absolute lies: do you wonder as well and as much about these?
In these cases: military-scientific-policies
there was only one conviction that v/aut/suit, and that is/was that the "truth" should be in the camp of the USA ... self-proclaimed guarantors of the "Free World" (of the pseudo states -democratic)
And therefore assuming that the vial (resp. the effectiveness of the vax) does not exist, there can be no conviction of not having it but quite the opposite! This would not exclude a prosecutor, for example, from looking for false evidence... (The conviction being upstream, the "disposition" of the truth is at this stage useless, because it is presumed to be known).
I'm not saying that you're not going to get away with it in different ways, you have a choice... I just mean that the way you present things to pass on those who you believe to be your "opponents " for ugly ducklings, can ironically turn out to be false or truncated, of the very constituent element of the reasoning: its initial absence of materiality, which cannot be concretized by a "simple conviction" even and especially if it can be falsely intimate (as examined in 1st degree). And unwittingly turn against you.
The "search for the truth
"in this conflict (if you had asked me) this very partially summarizes the preceding elements, and I would have told you modestly that it defines what must lead to Peace in "positive intentionality"
(well aware that it is the current opposite of this drama without forgetting any of the victims), not the speculation on its supposed non-existence, since it materializes BY and IN the facts.
What seems harmful in your aphorism is that it aims to deliver an inescapable truth but which turns out to be fragile and supposes a lack of intelligence (by aiming at an a priori of malevolence and ignorance instead of pointing out the aspects positives of the questioning of the narrative.)