If by that, you mean that many people prefer beautiful lies to ugly truth, then I agree. But I don't have to follow their example.
Equally, you are entirely correct to point out, that it is unwise to assume that just because one embraces logic and reason even in the face of realities that one feels uncomfortable about, that everyone would. To not accept that some people will choose comforting lies over uncomforting truth, would be denying logic and reason, and would thus be accepting comfortable lies over unpleasant truth.
If people require to see falsehood to accept a truth, then their reason for accepting that truth is not that it is truth, i.e. not why it is true, but for another reason. Then what they accept is that which is implied by that reason, and since that is not because it is true, but, say, because it is comforting to them, then they continue to accept that which is implied by that comfort which is not true, and they continue to reject that which is implied by that which is true, but which is incompatible with that sense of comfort. Thus, what appears to be quicksand, is a house with only half the foundations. The other half collapses, and keeps collapsing, no matter how many times one builds on the areas without foundation.
That is why so many people disagree with the argument of "the ends justify the means". Invariably, the imagined justified ends, never occur, and what occurs is even more unjustified than the unjustified means.
I went to university. I talked to people about it there, and people who'd been to uni 5 years earlier, 10 years earlier, 20 years earlier. In uni, students praised it highly. 5 years on, they said that some of it was not worth it. 10 years on, half. By 20 years on, people don't understand why they were taught 90% of what they were taught, as 90% of it was worth almost no value to their lives, and what they found was extremely important, they were never taught.
Is it rational to consider something quicksand, if you can't read it? I have read the Old Testament in the English, and in the original text. They read so differently, they should be classed as entirely different books.
Yeah I meant that people in general don't seem to care much about truth. I say seem because its whether they truly do not care depends on the degree to which they are aware of their own ignorance.
If people believe a falsehood to be truth then their very reason for believing that falsehood can still be the truth they percieve in it, hence they may still very much about truth.
My example wasn't so much about universities, I was just trying to illustrate an example of how history can show us that modern thought originates from bogus.
Another example of good falsehoods which while falsehoods were still a step on the way would be pre socratian philosophy, a foundation, both in the litteral and metaphorical sense.