100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Can an honest person not know what a lie is? | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Fri 03/23/12 02:51 PM
|
|
Good catch creative, then change my statement, remove the truth part at the end and replace with belief so first and second part are both referencing belief vs truth.
Does that make it sound? AND NO CHANGE IN CONTEXT OR SITUATION Pan^ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Fri 03/23/12 02:59 PM
|
|
For it to be a lie, the person making the statement must know the truth and knowingly present something other than the truth. So lets change this slightly. For it to be a lie, the person making the statement must believe something other than what he presents as truth. Or said a different way, presents information he/she believes is incorrect. Belief vs actual fact. That way even if truth is accidental, its the intention of misleading which makes the lie despite factual knowledge. I do not like person B, wish him ill, and so I tell him it is safe to push the red button, hoping he will believe me and become injured. Then even if I made a mistake and do not realize that it really is safe to push the red button my intention was still to mislead. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good catch creative, then change my statement, remove the truth part at the end and replace with belief so first and second part are both referencing belief vs truth. Does that make it sound? AND NO CHANGE IN CONTEXT OR SITUATION Pan^ I didn't change anything. You specified persons A and B, I simply acknowledged the fact that no 2 persons are identical. The switch's effect did not change, the situation did not change, the context did not change. The only thing that "changed" was your premise of person A and person B and whatever it is you want to claim the switch did. Notice how this was after I pointed out that I disagreed with your statement: "then it is clear I am lying to one or the other." I removed not a single thing nor added anything. I did not insert belief into anything either, only recognised the possibilities. That one possible scenario raises enough doubt to be uncertain. You statement was not clear enough for certainty. I couldn't be sure so if you want someone to be sure you're lying, just tell them... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good catch creative... Thanks, I figured you would appreciate the input. I'm glad that I held true belief regarding that. The phrasing immediately caught my attention. Anytime, anyone, anywhere begins to talk about "the truth" something, somewhere, is off. That is, perhaps, one of the most common uses in the English language, which is really a shame, because when pressed that phrasing is always a conflation between truth and something else. The consequences of such a use can only lead to a misunderstanding of truth and the role that it plays in thought/belief, language, and knowledge. That being said... For it to be a lie, the person making the statement must know the truth and knowingly present something other than the truth. So lets change this slightly. For it to be a lie, the person making the statement must believe something other than what he presents as truth. Or said a different way, presents information he/she believes is incorrect. Yes, this is much more coherent. I'd only add that "as truth" is redundant here, and as such it can be dropped and doing so has the positive consequence of increasing clarity. I mean, assuming honest testimony, to state "X" is to believe that "X" is true; is the case at hand; is correct; is the way things are; corresponds to reality, etc. Belief vs actual fact. Just curious here, if you don't mind my pressing you for an explanation...  Is there a difference between a fact and an actual fact? That way even if truth is accidental, its the intention of misleading which makes the lie despite factual knowledge. I do not like person B, wish him ill, and so I tell him it is safe to push the red button, hoping he will believe me and become injured. Then even if I made a mistake and do not realize that it really is safe to push the red button my intention was still to mislead. Yes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pan: I didn't change anything... I removed not a single thing nor added anything.  bushido's words: If I tell person A, the red switch is safe to pull, and I tell person B, the red switch is not safe to pull. Without a change in my knowledge of the safety of pulling the red switch, AND NO CHANGE IN CONTEXT OR SITUATION, then it is clear I am lying to one or the other. Pan's words: The red switch operates a gate placed 6 feet above the ground. Person A is 5'6" Person B is 6'6" No matter how one slices it, this adds information. Information is something. Therefore, it cannot be the case that one adds information, but does not add anything. Adding information is changing the context. Subsequently, we can also clearly see that the judgment was based not only upon what was given, but also upon what was added. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Fri 03/23/12 03:54 PM
|
|
This question has come as a result of several different conversations that I've had in recent past. I'm currently undecided on the matter, which is new for me...  So whatcha think, and more importantly how do you arrive at that conclusion?  Most People are aware when they're fudging the Facts! This needs some unpacking, could you explain what you mean here? http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/honesty.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ooooooohhhhhh Grasshopper....... One can not be honest....... until he has experienced dishonest. One can not be good...... Until he has experienced.....Bad!!! For how would he know the......... Difference????? I disagree. Knowing the difference between the two is not required for being either one. Lets use you as an example....... How can you choose to be an honest person.....if you do not know the difference. You cannot make a choice to be something you don't understand. So without knowing the difference between honest and dishonest......you can truely be.....neither!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pan: I didn't change anything... I removed not a single thing nor added anything. bushido's words: If I tell person A, the red switch is safe to pull, and I tell person B, the red switch is not safe to pull. Without a change in my knowledge of the safety of pulling the red switch, AND NO CHANGE IN CONTEXT OR SITUATION, then it is clear I am lying to one or the other. Pan's words: The red switch operates a gate placed 6 feet above the ground. Person A is 5'6" Person B is 6'6" No matter how one slices it, this adds information. Information is something. Therefore, it cannot be the case that one adds information, but does not add anything. Adding information is changing the context. Subsequently, we can also clearly see that the judgment was based not only upon what was given, but also upon what was added. Again, I didn't add anything, only recognised the possibilities with the limited information supplied. Feel free to make judgements without knowing all the facts, I'll continue to keep an open mind and explore ALL possibilities... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lets use you as an example....... How can you choose to be an honest person.....if you do not know the difference. Well, if one knows what honesty is, then by virtue of knowing that s/he also knows what lying is. So, in order to choose to be honest(willfully be honest), one must know what being honest is. My only point here is that being honest does not require choosing to be so. That is clearly supported by everyday facts, as they occur. Young children are often 'brutally' honest. You cannot make a choice to be something you don't understand. That's not true. I could make a choice to be an actor without having the slightest clue what being an actor is like. Thus, I can most certainly choose to be something that I don't understand. So without knowing the difference between honest and dishonest......you can truely be.....neither!!! This is not quite right. One can be honest without choosing to be, and that happens all the time. To quite the contrary and in agreement with you I think, one must choose to lie. That is so because one always knows when they're deliberately misrepresenting what they believe to be the case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ayn Rand is rubbish. That's about all her foolosophy deserves from me here. If you are a Randian, then by all means, join in on your own terms, not by asking me to argue with what Rand says in her fictional novel Atlas Shrugged... "Who is John Galt?" Who cares? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Fri 03/23/12 04:25 PM
|
|
Again, I didn't add anything... Repeating the statement does not make it true. The facts clearly show that you did add information. Anyone who cares can look and see for themselves, it is not some big mystery to be solved. Feel free to make judgements without knowing all the facts, I'll continue to keep an open mind and explore ALL possibilities... Let me know when you know all the facts. That would be remarkable. Edited to add: The last bit would have better put a little differently. It is clear that no one knows all the facts. That's how we all judge. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again, I didn't add anything... Repeating the statement does not make it true. The facts clearly show that you did add information. Anyone who cares can look and see for themselves, it is not some big mystery to be solved. Feel free to make judgements without knowing all the facts, I'll continue to keep an open mind and explore ALL possibilities... Let me know when you know all the facts. That would be remarkable. Well you'll have to tell them to me since bushido didn't specify attributes of the persons nor the switch. I love how you extrapolated all the required data to properly assess exactly what bushido meant. It doesn't matter what he meant, what matters is what was stated. I know what his intention was though, he just wasn't clear enough to pull off the certainty claim. If you think he was clear enough, then I hope you never have to serve jury duty. By assuming that person A and B were identical, you inserted your beliefs into his statement. By assuming what the switch did, you are guilty of what you accuse me of doing. I suppose you would claim that 2 separate people taking a driving test are not in the same situation because they aren't identical too. Nice try though... I simply recognised a possibility and stated it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ayn Rand is rubbish. That's about all her foolosophy deserves from me here. If you are a Randian, then by all means, join in on your own terms, not by asking me to argue with what Rand says in her fictional novel Atlas Shrugged... "Who is John Galt?" Who cares? Rubbish* * When in doubt and with no logical retort, resort to logical fallacies. What was the rubbish remark? Appeal to ridicule or poisoning the well? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I love how you extrapolated all the required data to properly assess exactly what bushido meant. I have no idea what you're going on about here. I know the meaning of the words he wrote in the context that it was written, thus I understood what he meant. I also understand what constitutes being a change in context. He specifically stated with CAPITAL letters "and no change in context or situation". He and I share an understanding of what that means, because it is a matter of convention that we both follow. Thus, we both know what changing the context looks like, and therefore what that means. I put that knowledge to use by only assessing what was given. It doesn't matter what he meant, what matters is what was stated. What he meant is all that matters when we are talking about his instructions. There is controversy here. His usage followed convention and as such it was understood. It seems to me that he stated exactly what he meant. By assuming that person A and B were identical, you inserted your beliefs into his statement. I assumed nothing of the sort. I worked with what was given. Here it is again... If I tell person A, the red switch is safe to pull, and I tell person B, the red switch is not safe to pull. Without a change in my knowledge of the safety of pulling the red switch, AND NO CHANGE IN CONTEXT OR SITUATION, then it is clear I am lying to one or the other What is at stake is whether or not bushido must be lying, according to what is given. We can determine that much if we base the determination upon that much. It is as a direct result of his not offering anything else, in addition to his instruction regarding changes, that we only work with what was given. Based upon that we can only conclude that he was lying to one of the two, because the red switch cannot be both safe and not safe at the same time. That violates the law of non-contradiction. By assuming what the switch did, you are guilty of what you accuse me of doing. I suppose you would claim that 2 separate people taking a driving test are not in the same situation because they aren't identical too. I assumed nothing of the sort. Clearly the switch is a safety concern, that much is necessarily implied, and therefore that much was given. I simply recognised a possibility and stated it. Well of course. Not much was given, and one could fill in all sorts of blanks with all sorts of different possibilities and state those. What one cannot do, however, is engage in such an activity without changing the context of the situation as it was given. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ayn Rand is rubbish. That's about all her foolosophy deserves from me here. If you are a Randian, then by all means, join in on your own terms, not by asking me to argue with what Rand says in her fictional novel Atlas Shrugged... "Who is John Galt?" Who cares? Rubbish* * When in doubt and with no logical retort, resort to logical fallacies. What was the rubbish remark? Appeal to ridicule or poisoning the well? It was not meant to be an argument. Logical fallacies apply to arguments. I suggest that you brush up on the terms your using. To quite the contrary, it was my considered opinion about Randian philosophy which has been thoroughly argued many times in the past, and I'm not opposed to doing so again. It requires an interlocutor not a cut and paste job. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I love how you extrapolated all the required data to properly assess exactly what bushido meant. I have no idea what you're going on about here. I know the meaning of the words he wrote in the context that it was written, thus I understood what he meant. I also understand what constitutes being a change in context. He specifically stated with CAPITAL letters "and no change in context or situation". He and I share an understanding of what that means, because it is a matter of convention that we both follow. Thus, we both know what changing the context looks like, and therefore what that means. I put that knowledge to use by only assessing what was given. It doesn't matter what he meant, what matters is what was stated. What he meant is all that matters when we are talking about his instructions. There is controversy here. His usage followed convention and as such it was understood. It seems to me that he stated exactly what he meant. By assuming that person A and B were identical, you inserted your beliefs into his statement. I assumed nothing of the sort. I worked with what was given. Here it is again... If I tell person A, the red switch is safe to pull, and I tell person B, the red switch is not safe to pull. Without a change in my knowledge of the safety of pulling the red switch, AND NO CHANGE IN CONTEXT OR SITUATION, then it is clear I am lying to one or the other What is at stake is whether or not bushido must be lying, according to what is given. We can determine that much if we base the determination upon that much. It is as a direct result of his not offering anything else, in addition to his instruction regarding changes, that we only work with what was given. Based upon that we can only conclude that he was lying to one of the two, because the red switch cannot be both safe and not safe at the same time. That violates the law of non-contradiction. By assuming what the switch did, you are guilty of what you accuse me of doing. I suppose you would claim that 2 separate people taking a driving test are not in the same situation because they aren't identical too. I assumed nothing of the sort. Clearly the switch is a safety concern, that much is necessarily implied, and therefore that much was given. I simply recognised a possibility and stated it. Well of course. Not much was given, and one could fill in all sorts of blanks with all sorts of different possibilities and state those. What one cannot do, however, is engage in such an activity without changing the context of the situation as it was given. Would this be easier for ya if I just acknowledge that you could be lying? Or should I expect to be lied to? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would this be easier for ya if I just acknowledge that you could be lying? Or should I expect to be lied to? Explain what "this" means. What does "this" refer to? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would this be easier for ya if I just acknowledge that you could be lying? Or should I expect to be lied to? Explain what "this" means. What does "this" refer to? "CONTEXT OR SITUATION" I'll explain "this" when you explain "that". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would this be easier for ya if I just acknowledge that you could be lying? Or should I expect to be lied to? Explain what "this" means. What does "this" refer to? "CONTEXT OR SITUATION" You're asking me if the context/situation would be easier for me if you acknowledged that I could be lying? What kind of sense does that make given how the discussion has progressed? |
|
|
|
|
