Drawing the Line Between Truth and Lie

[guest_of_logic]

Please see my following post to brokenhead. It may answer your questions.

It didn't. I'm still baffled as to what you intended to prove with that conversation.

[brokenhead]

Well, guest and you haven’t shown (as yet) any interest in taking spirituality seriously – so you two can’t really be classed as ‘humans’. But Leyla’s posts about her own longing to become human will be read by other people also wanting the same thing. And it is in this way that her love of truth becomes love for humanity.

This is why you are tragically misguided. You have these vague notions of intellectuality; you feel this need to see yourself as above the rest, that you are reaching for some noble truth the rest of us sheep can't see.

You think there is this small group of people - they know who they are - who truly know what's best for humanity. You and Leyla are among them, the tragically misunderstood, the true heroes who alone have the grand vision of what is good for mankind.

You need to get over yourself and conquer your rank sentimentality and emotionalism, your pseudo-intellectuality.

What kind of nincompoop extolls "love for humanity" and derides love and kindness for individual people in the same breath? How are you being logical? Or practical, for that matter? If you - and I'm speaking just to you, Sue, not Leyla, because I'm not convinced you are speaking for her or that she would necessarily be agreeing with you, although she may very well - if you so love humanity, to whom do you show it? If not to humans, I mean?

You are using the words "love" in two different contexts, praising it in one and equating it with hatred in another. And calling yourself logical. Do you simply not understand that people are all different, with differing mental capacities and varying ability to be completely rational?

I agree that many parents are too childlike to be effective in their parenting roles. But it is nonsense to equate love with immaturity or irrationality, let alone with hatred and/or malice. You are too fixated on this idea. You repeat it over and over. It is a sure sign that you are not growing and progressing.

It's as if you were equating rap with music, and then complaining that music lacks melody and variety.

Only immature or sick love has subterfuges, Sue. It makes me think that we must be talking about two different things.

[JemyM]

Truth survives on it's own and can never be defeated. Truth is external from human thought. Truth can never be completely known, but it can be approached by removing lies. Truth is universal. Truth is never a subject to opinion. An agreement can only decide upon a likely truth but not the eternal truth since the eternal truth cannot be known.

Lies on the other hand is a human creation. Lies can be known and then can be defeated. Lies exist only within the human mind.

[Nick]

Truth can never be completely known

Based on everything you said above you seem quite certain that you know the truth. Problem is, it means in this particular statement I quoted you on, you completely contradicted yourself. Meaning you ought to rethink your position on all fronts.

[JemyM]

Truth can never be completely known

Based on everything you said above you seem quite certain that you know the truth. Problem is, it means in this particular statement I quoted you on, you completely contradicted yourself. Meaning you ought to rethink your position on all fronts.

Everything I say is the product of my thoughts and experiences which is the edge of my capacity as human.
Since expressed by a human; the statement "truth can never be completely known" is automatically based on human perspective. As I said, truth is external from human thought, thus humans can only try to approach the truth.

As a human, these are the statements I can make regarding the truth;
* A direct lie
* A truthclaim closer to wrong than the truth
* A truthclaim closer to the truth than wrong

It's not within my capacity as human to make a truthclaim equal to the truth. As human, I can only attempt to make a truthclaim that is more true than wrong.

I always rethink my position on all fronts, that's the only way I can continue to debunk the lies that others tell me and the ones I tell to myself, including the lie that I know the truth.

[Leyla Shen]

Ah, fuck the butter knife. I'm bringing out the machete for this one.

I'll be back.

[Leyla Shen]

A truly loving individual cannot help being fascinated by the question of truth, lies and honesty, and the impact of each person’s conception of them on others. This thread is no less fascinating than any usual interactions one has with others every day for such an individual. There is, however, a difference and that difference is that, for those who get caught up in the excitement of tit-for-tat exchanges, altogether losing sight of the momentum in the spirit of the question itself, the discourse itself is preserved here for all to reflect upon.

This thread began with the essential question, what is a lie?

Here I offer, as a matter of contrast between discourses, contributions to answering the question. The pattern is the same for each contributor throughout the thread; some are working on the question, others are clearly working on something else:

A Discourse between Bastions of (Absolute) Truth

MG: The truth was that there is something higher than animal instinct, but I lied about God [“the aspect of God was false”].

LS: Lies are only harmful [in the pursuit of truth itself] to the degree that you don’t know the reasons you tell them.

MG: If my understanding of something and what I mean by it is true and the another’s is false and I, therefore, make a true and direct statement about it, my statement cannot be considered a lie simply because the other person has false understanding of the thing I’m pointing to.

LS: But the term God is ambiguous and, thus, if the statement does not convey truth directly but only reaffirms this ambiguity or falsity, then it is a lie and the other person’s lack of willingness to grasp the truth in it is irrelevant.

MG: What I mean is that you can make a truthful statement to anyone but there is no guarantee they’ll understand it. In the example I gave, though it was the case that I did a bad job and that I told a lie, the effort was honest.

LS: One either tells the truth or they don’t. To call an effort honest is simply to admit that one doesn’t know truth well enough to impart it and there is, for that reason, some conundrum over imparting it.

MG: Why do you separate being uncertain of truth from a conundrum over imparting truth. Isn’t it part of one’s own journey; about tearing down the walls ego naturally wants to construct between yourself and others?

LS: I separate them in order to distinguish between the uncertainty [itself] and being embroiled in the conundrum of that uncertainty.
[…]

MG: I did impart a truth, though. It was just a little, subtle truth.

LS: I disagree. You imparted more of the same poetry she’s used to hearing. What indication was there that she actually received even a modicum of the truth you claim to have imparted? Or, are you 1) satisfied with having achieved imparting something to her that she already knew ("God knows best"); or maybe, do you 2) consider the sounds of your words alone as an imparting of the truth about which you spoke/were pointing to?

MG: Well, alright. I give up. I lied. I don't want to defend this any longer.

~

Squeals from the Merged Void (Defenders of Truth as Consensus)

MG: I did impart a truth, though. It was just a little, subtle truth. And yeah, I do admit I was looking at how she felt, not because I valued her feelings more than her understanding of truth, but because a person's feelings determine what they're able to take in. Feelings act like mental blocks. If I were to say, "In the grand scheme of nature, your son is no different to a fly on a windshield . . . splat!" or something like that, I don't think it would have been effective, and what's more, it would have had serious consequences in regards to my future service at the diner!

brokenhead: The reek of self-importance here is overwhelming. You "admit" to looking at how she felt. Empathy is what then, a crime? A sin?

"Not because I valued her feelings more than her understanding of the truth" No, you wouldn't want that to happen, god forbid.

Maybe you just had a flash of humanity, a moment of true insight. Maybe you realize that it is totally preposterous that you should think you know what the truth is, or that you are in any position whatsoever to judge her view of the truth. You are only assuming that you have anything to "impart."

First, do no harm. If getting good service in the future is what kept you from unloading your fly-on-the-windshield philosophy on her, that's fine. Maybe you could even take the occasion to consider that you don't have all the answers.

You managed to perform an act of kindness and now you seem to think you have to rationalize it or justify it somehow. This almost sounds like you're confessing to a misdeed. That should tell you something.

“Knock, knock.” (Cute, Jason.) We’re addressing truth and lies directly. Why are you peddling and not practising empathy by at least placing it directly in the context of truth? And why—oh, why—do I bring this to your attention? Truth, empathy or emotionalism?

~

So, what do we see here with the above examples? We see in one a clear and definite discourse about truth—a direct address of the opening question.

In the other, not a single exegesis about the nature of lies and truth (naturally, since it couldn't be clearer that there is NO distinction)—but plenty of implicit, unconscious and logically unsubstantiated (meaning, emotionally driven) allusions as to perhaps, maybe - just maybe - being in possession of some kind of truth (at least about the character of those who have said something about truth itself); and this, not unimportantly, IS an explicitly stated contempt for the veracity of truth and evidence of the contradiction between his behaviour and thoughts. So much contempt does he have for truth that he cannot even bring himself to utter the word except as a passing comment in relation to…empathy?

Empty, sanctimonious blather—and not even close to philosophy, let alone the matter of truth! And here in this thread, another would take immediate opportunity to indicate that this man, this broken head, has brought “plenty to the table” despite clear evidence to the contrary. What could possibly drive him to do so? Truth, empathy (emotional identification), emotionalism?

Verily I say! Henceforth and for all time will they be hanged, drawn and quartered by truth, dying a thousand karmic deaths over and over; a purgatory dressed in masks of flamboyant peacock feathers and soft satin gowns by order from heaven!

Oh, man! Hold ye fast to your blessed mind, its suffering and your senses—and even more steadfastly to your transcendence of it; the token woman will wear but will never value the pearls of it!

[sue hindmarsh]

guest_of_logic wrote:

I'm still baffled as to what you intended to prove with that conversation.

Remember, you made the comment:

I can think of few roles that require the exercise of love and kindness more than mothering children.

I replied saying that I doubted whether mothers, or women in general, have the capacity for love and kindness.

To me, at least, the mothers in conversation were heartlessly wringing every possible drop from the people and situations around them; thereby establishing the roles of mother and wife. Not that they were intentionally doing so. Never would they consciously consider using their husbands and children in such a despicable manner. They're just ordinary women. For them, it is automatic. As it is for all other women. For that's Her nature.

So those two mums "proved" that, yes, there are few roles that require the exercise of love and kindness more than mothering children - it's just that women aren't the ones able to provide it.

[Nick]

Everything I say is the product of my thoughts and experiences which is the edge of my capacity as human.
Since expressed by a human; the statement "truth can never be completely known" is automatically based on human perspective. As I said, truth is external from human thought, thus humans can only try to approach the truth.

As a human, these are the statements I can make regarding the truth;
* A direct lie
* A truthclaim closer to wrong than the truth
* A truthclaim closer to the truth than wrong

It's not within my capacity as human to make a truthclaim equal to the truth. As human, I can only attempt to make a truthclaim that is more true than wrong.

I always rethink my position on all fronts, that's the only way I can continue to debunk the lies that others tell me and the ones I tell to myself, including the lie that I know the truth.

I think you broke the record for most contradictions in a single post.

[JemyM]

I think you broke the record for most contradictions in a single post.

A simple statement without arguments is merely an unsupported opinion.

[guest_of_logic]

To me, at least, the mothers in conversation were heartlessly wringing every possible drop from the people and situations around them; thereby establishing the roles of mother and wife. Not that they were intentionally doing so. Never would they consciously consider using their husbands and children in such a despicable manner. They're just ordinary women. For them, it is automatic. As it is for all other women. For that's Her nature.

So those two mums "proved" that, yes, there are few roles that require the exercise of love and kindness more than mothering children - it's just that women aren't the ones able to provide it.

About the only quote that I found objectionable was the final one (selfish for working). The rest seemed mostly like fairly innocuous news-sharing to me - in no way disproving a capacity for love and kindness.

[Ataraxia]

It's not within my capacity as human to make a truthclaim equal to the truth.

True statements are a dime a dozen,mate.

It is true that : "there currently appears to be coffee mug sitting on my desk"

It is true that : "Hawthorn FC are widely acknowledged as the winners of the 2008 AFL Grand Final"

etc.

[JemyM]

True statements are a dime a dozen,mate.
It is true that : "there currently appears to be coffee mug sitting on my desk"
It is true that : "Hawthorn FC are widely acknowledged as the winners of the 2008 AFL Grand Final"
etc.

True, yes, but even if those statements are more true than false, they only represent a fraction of the truth.

[Tomas]

A truly loving individual cannot help being fascinated by the question of truth, lies and honesty, and the impact of each person’s conception of them on others. This thread is no less fascinating than any usual interactions one has with others every day for such an individual. There is, however, a difference and that difference is that, for those who get caught up in the excitement of tit-for-tat exchanges, altogether losing sight of the momentum in the spirit of the question itself, the discourse itself is preserved here for all to reflect upon.

Aristotle taught that the highest human happiness is the intellectual contemplation of truth.

Aquinas defined truth as: "The conformity of the mind with what is."

When one accepts that truth is not something we make up individually, then finding out "what really is" outside of our own opinions and feelings becomes imperative in order to not live a life that is meaningless.

We instinctively grasp that truthfulness is at the heart of human credibility.

[pegasus]

Does persuasion and salesmanship count as lying? Where can you draw the line? If instead of a car salesman saying, "We got a new blue Cadillac in today", he said "We got a beautiful new blue Cadillac in today", did he turn that statement into a lie?

lies are good for linear programming your selves out there in the business world. Truth on the other hand, goes hand in hand with suffering money. One lies to forecast the future using medieval regressive means.