Borderline personalities “discussing” philosophy on an ailing message board is not going to improve with the addition of citations. Especially when most people think a cite means “I’ve linked to a blog that I can’t be bothered to read.”
Um, when it’s invention, such as a novel.
Lying implies you are purposing trying to distort something. When discussing an interpretation of a philosophy, it’s entirely possible to believe that one’s own interpretation is correct, or that one may think one knows more about a subject than one actually does. “Making shit up”, in the context of that discussion, would be a good way to describe someone talking about something that he has little or no knowledge-- or inadequate or mistaken knowledge. That is not lying.
He’s talking about you, who in an earlier post called him a liar. Which you did. So, after you called him a liar, he called you out on it. For Pete’s sake indeed…
Where? The only place I can see where lying is mentioned by MrDibble is where he explicitly denies even implying such a thing. And then, bizarrely, gets told off for it.
Well what if what you make up just happens to be correct? The fact that you made it up does not mean it is a lie. Seems to me a lie must be intentionally false. If you ask me how many beans are in a jar and I just make up a number off the top of my head which happens to coincide with the actual number of beans, have I lied? Maybe I wanted to lie but the fact that I was unintentionally correct has prevented the lie…it’s turtles all the way down…
We’ve been through this. If you make something up and assert that you know it to be so, it is a lie, even if your made-up thing later turns out to be correct.
If you couch your made-up thing in verbiage that a resaonable person would construe as an invitation to assume that you are asserting that you know it to be so, it’s still deceptive, still a lie.
ETA: I’m not getting into the question of Lib’s interpretation of Sartre’s words. Or whether he’s justified in feeling piled-on in that thread.
I agree that such an implication would be deceptive but I am talking about the truth value of the statement " There are X beans in the jar". If there are X beans in the jar then that statement is not a lie. Perhaps your implication is false but the statement itself is not. A true statement cannot be a lie. The fact that you make a true statement does not mean you are not being deceptive. Nor does it mean that the some total (both verbal and non-verbal) of what you are trying to communicate is not a lie. The verbal statement is true (X beans) the non-verbal implication (I counted them) is false.
BTW just because you’ve done this before does not mean we all have…
Cite? Are you perhaps referring to:
That wasn’t an accusation of lying, that was an accusation of playing semantics . As **Lib **very well knew, since his “making shit up” reference was specifically to my call for a cite, not to the above quote. I never accused Lib of lying in that thread. I did say he had no basis (outside his own head) for his interpretation of Sartre’s words. That’s not lying.