Lies do not Exist

[Trajicomic]

The problem is not people always lying, but people always telling the truth. People always tell the truth.

It is not until we disbelieve each other, and disbelieve the truth we say, that lies become possible.

It is not until a human animal can deny truth that lies can exist.


So is it then possible for human animals to deny truth?

I don't think so. All the human animal can deny is his or her interpretation of language. But the human is far too devolved an organism to deny truth, yet.

[lizbethrose]

The problem is not people always lying, but people always telling the truth. People always tell the truth.

It is not until we disbelieve each other, and disbelieve the truth we say, that lies become possible.

It is not until a human animal can deny truth that lies can exist.


So is it then possible for human animals to deny truth?

I don't think so. All the human animal can deny is his or her interpretation of language. But the human is far too devolved an organism to deny truth, yet.

People don't always tell the truth, that's why they can often be disbelieved. Then there are those people who've been deluded or have deluded themselves into believing that what they say, or what other people say, is the truth. This happens all the time in politics. People honestly believe a piss-poor presidential candidate will 'save the country' because s/ he belongs to a given political party. Then, there are two major kinds of lies--RCs call them lies of 'commission' and lies of 'omission.' Finally, the committed lies can be 'white lies,' fibs, or 'it's none of your business' kinds of lies.

So I'd say we humans are quite adept at lying and we do it all the time, either consciously or unconsciously. And truth, like beauty, is in the eye, or mind, of the beholder.

[Trajicomic]

I'm not a "fan" of your work, liz, so I'm not going to respond to your responses, sorry. Better luck next screenname.

[Only_Humean]

I'm not a "fan" of your work, liz, so I'm not going to respond to your responses, sorry. Better luck next screenname.

I'm not a "fan" of your response. Please read the Forum rules, notable 2.1 and 2.2, and be advised that any subsequent breaches will lead to a warning.

[lizbethrose]

I'm sorry, tc. (Actually, I'm not sorry, but I can't apologize for what I say. I can only apologize for apparent tone of voice, is all.) I don't use any other screen name--my name is my name and I am who I am.

It's okay if you don't want to respond, I was trying to prime the pump, is all. --Liz

[Trajicomic]

I'm not a "fan" of your response. Please read the Forum rules, notable 2.1 and 2.2, and be advised that any subsequent breaches will lead to a warning.

I'm reporting you for going off topic and ruining a perfectly fine thread! Ooohhhhhh, what now??

[Trajicomic]

I was trying to prime the pump

Consider my pump primed.

[Trajicomic]

By the way, "better luck next screenname" means better luck to the NEXT PERSON who replies to this thread, duh.

[Trajicomic]

I can see the po po is coming to shut a good thread down, like usual.

So I'll just give you knuckleheads the answer already. Because I'm such a nice guy.

Lies are disbeliefs of truth. Lies are disbeliefs. Because Truth is ever present, omnipresent. Truth cannot become denied. That is why all denials are lies. It is impossible to deny what is apparent, except by ignorance as an attempt to ignore. But ignorance is a failure, a failure to continue to witness truth.

[Only_Humean]

I'm reporting you for going off topic and ruining a perfectly fine thread! Ooohhhhhh, what now??

Covered under forum rule 3.1, as communicated by PM. Your reply is not. Any further offtopic timewasting will be met with a warning (although probably not a thread-locking) and the appropriate ban.

[Trajicomic]

You're too late! I already gave the answer to this thread: lies are attempted disbeliefs in already apparent truths. /thread

[lizbethrose]

Then, I say again, most of us are liars.

You said, "Lies are disbeliefs of truth. Lies are disbeliefs. " A disbelief is the inability or, perhaps reluctance, to accept something as true. When you go to the theater, for example, you're willing to suspend your disbelief and accept what's happening on either the stage or the screen as 'real.'

But what happens when what you disbelieve turns out to be true, or real? Did you ever see the movie Big Fish? It's an excellent example of just such an occurrence. The question then becomes who's the liar--the teller of what you believe are highly imaginative 'tall tales,' that turn out to be true or you, because you didn't believe him?

There's nothing wrong with a certain amount of skepticism, Cartesian Doubt, whatever you want to call it, as long as it doesn't become belligerent to the point where one cannot and will not accept any point of view but his own.

Btw, I don't think you can end threads, you just have to let them die the slow, lingering death that takes them further and further down the page due to lack of responses.

[Trajicomic]

Lies are only possible if and when we defy other people's expectations of logic, physics, reality, or universal laws.

[loveissweet]

The problem is not people always lying, but people always telling the truth. People always tell the truth.

You must have missed the part where someone intentionally says something that is not actually the case specifically to give someone else the wrong impression. Have you never done that?

[ZenKitty]

All posts on this thread are lies

[Trajicomic]

You must have missed the part where someone intentionally says something that is not actually the case specifically to give someone else the wrong impression. Have you never done that?

I could not have ever done that unless I've known The Truth.

All posts on this thread are lies

Liar!

At least you're telling the truth though, ZenKitty.

[victorel21]

Define truth.

[Dglgmut]

Lies start with self-doubt. When we take someone else's word over our own logic, we accidentally adopt a lie. The lie is that we know the truth, without actually understanding how we know it, other than, "That's what he/she told me."

[Smears]

When people say, "x doesn't exist". I always wonder how they're going to explain what they're referencing, or how they're going to dilute the definition of exist.

[lizbethrose]

When people say, "x doesn't exist". I always wonder how they're going to explain what they're referencing, or how they're going to dilute the definition of exist.

Good show,smears. LOL

[Philosopher8659]

People always tell the truth.

I have never met "the truth" so I have never told it anything. However, I am curious, what do people tell the truth anyway?

"the" is used for an in situ abstraction in order to comply with the naming convention. There is no environmental convention possible for this set of words. Another awkward self referential fallacy, being that a sentence refers to itself, before it was at all. However, there is indication of what is meant, that people use principles of language, which they do, but not virtuously.

[Philosopher8659]

interpretation of language.

Nothing like the ultimate self-referential fallacy. Discourses about reasoning by someone who cannot reason at all, is about as frustrating as beating one's meat with a hammer. Well, maybe the latter actually has some perverse meaning while the other is just perverse? Hell, it is past my bed time.

Someone can interpret Latin into English, or English into Sanskrit, or some words into human action (being an analogic), but not language into language. Nor is it even a complete thought to say that I can interpret English, or Sanskrit, interpret it into what other language? Nor can one interpret English into English, however, the Supreme Court claims it can do just that in order to violate the Constitution, thinking everyone is as dumb as a box of rocks and won't notice the fallacy. When it was written that the Supreme Court could interpret the Constitution, this could only mean effect policies for its expression, i,e. a logic into an analogic, not make what was written mean exactly the opposite logic contradict logic.

And to say, "Lies do not Exist" is a self referential fallacy to begin with. All language is based on a convention of words, meaning, as Plato pointed out, one cannot predicate existence nor deny it. Well, the village medicine man is still trying to use magic words.

Many people believe like a bunch of idiots do, who teach logic, that sentences are either true or false, as if by some magic, they wrote themselves-or that they, in or themselves, can comply with the principles of grammar, of which they are a part. Now that is a neat trick that takes place in environs of higher education, teaching magic in logic classes.

There is no language possible, that can be, in of itself, either true or false. Such a belief that it can is an anthropomorphism.

And how dumb does someone have to be to invent predicate logic--a language of a language? Starting with a self-referential fallacy to begin with? How can anyone even sit through the introduction of it and not fall out laughing?

[ZenKitty]

When people say, "x doesn't exist". I always wonder how they're going to explain what they're referencing, or how they're going to dilute the definition of exist.

I thought this was suppose to be part of some paradox, or wasn't this part of Plato's Beard as well?

[Only_Humean]

When people say, "x doesn't exist". I always wonder how they're going to explain what they're referencing, or how they're going to dilute the definition of exist.

They're saying x has no referent; it can never be ostensively shown. It's a linguistic/conceptual construct.

A pegasus is a horse (I can show you a horse) with wings (I can show you wings). "There exists an x such that x is a horse with wings" is false, without any special meaning necessary for 'exist'.

[ZenKitty]

When people say, "x doesn't exist". I always wonder how they're going to explain what they're referencing, or how they're going to dilute the definition of exist.

They're saying x has no referent; it can never be ostensively shown. It's a linguistic/conceptual construct.

A pegasus is a horse (I can show you a horse) with wings (I can show you wings). "There exists an x such that x is a horse with wings" is false, without any special meaning necessary for 'exist'.

Did they check everywhere, and all time? If not, they're words don't refer either. So theyir words of "Peaguses doesn't exist" doesn't ostensively refer either, or make any sense like "Peaguses exists".