01 Oct 05
A lot of debate on these forums evolves around the question whether the truth is to be seen as relative or universal. In this context I would like to present an issue that is certainly linked with this one.
How do you look upon lies ? Are they also just a "point of view", merely expressing an opinion, merely a perspective ? How is it possible to deliberately tell an untruth, a lie, if the truth is relative and can be changed according the circumstances ?
01 Oct 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeGood question.....
A lot of debate on these forums evolves around the question whether the truth is to be seen as relative or universal. In this context I would like to present an issue that is certainly linked with this one.
How do you look upon lies ? Are they also just a "point of view", merely expressing an opinion, merely a perspective ? How is it possible to deliber ...[text shortened]... ell an untruth, a lie, if the truth is relative and can be changed according the circumstances ?
I believe the truth is universal, but a persons perception of the truth is relative.
Opinions are relative, faith is relative, but fact is universal and absolute.
It is possible to tell a lie, because the definition of a lie is to deliberately say something you know is not truth.
01 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf the absolute is relative, changing itself according to circumstance and in relation to it's own prior history - and furthermore if one knew this (and/or the absolute was relatively self-conscious), then obscuring this very fact would be a deliberate lie.
How is it possible to deliberately tell an untruth, a lie, if the truth is relative and can be changed according the circumstances ?
But the motive here and the "for the sake of which" would still be unknown. Thus, the question of whether the lie was good or bad would still hang in suspense.
It could be the case, for instance, that certain interlocutors were neither able nor ready to handle such a truth; and that certain provisional truths need to be projected in the course of their training. Much as rules are given to a neophyte when the hoped for stage of competency or genius would necessarily require their supersession...with the dawn of autonomy.
01 Oct 05
Originally posted by XHerakleitosDo you have an example in mind?
If the absolute is relative, changing itself according to circumstance and in relation to it's own prior history - and furthermore if one knew this (and/or the absolute was relatively self-conscious), then obscuring this very fact would be a deliberate lie.
But the motive here and the "for the sake of which" would still be unknown. Thus, the question of whether the lie was good or bad would still hang in suspense.