Historically, and yet still today, millions of people put their theories of "truth" ahead of their humanity. Turning on the news will enlighten us as to what many people do in the name of truth.
The Cognitive Miser Lens is a costly viewpoint for the world's citizens to hoard.
Cognitive misery appears in the every day judgmental thoughts that people hold and is present when individuals stop themselves from being more understanding in the name of some preconceived truth.
Can truth be "truth" if it is preconceived? How could we claim to know "truth" before having discovered it? How could we legitimately hold one "truth" over another? Would that not then turn the "other truth" into a "lesser truth" by comparison?
How could "truth" ever be lesser? By nature of its definition, is it must be equal in its truthfulness.
Did not Voltaire warn:
At this point in time, I can only personally claim to "know" three things about the world:
(1) that I cannot, in my present state and form, claim to "know" anything with certainty;
(2) that I exist; and
(3) that whatever the inner workings of the universe may or may not be, that I am, at present, happy to be part of it.
For me, truth is not as important as existing. Our existence is perhaps the only "truth" we can claim beyond the veil of ignorance that envelops our species. Whether there is one or many who know other truths than those which our species has uncovered or has yet to discover is unknown, and perhaps not as important as simply knowing that we are part of this thing we call "existence".
It is this not knowing that our minds must allow for, that our minds must accept as a fundamental truth and from that recognize that what we know is subject to change and largely dependent on one's own perspective or viewpoint.
The Cognitive Miser has closed his mind off to the possibility What if...? he mistakingly and authoritatively claims that he has discovered "truth" when in reality the ONLY thing he has discovered the LIMIT of his imagination and the THRESHOLD of his ability to suspend judgment.
In simple terms:
What value can one derive from accepting a state of being whose foundation is built upon not knowing?
(1) by feeling "poor" before an entire universe, thereby grasping at and hoarding "truths"
(2) by feeling "rich" in their knowing that they do not know and are thusly open to learning and discovery.
When one is stripped bare of one's pretenses, does not earnestness for self-understanding naturally arise?