I found this clear to begin with.

What would that grade mean?



:bigsmile:

Deckard,

You wish to make the distinction between:

A.) Saying what is true (stating a fact, "factual truth")
B.) Saying what we believe to be true (not lying, "honest truth")

This is what you mean by "truth is two dimensional", right? There is honesty, and there is correspondance with reality or fact. And these things are different. That is true.

Perhaps you're trying to get to the bottom of someone being honest but also not being correct about a fact. If I sincerely believed that Philadelphia was the capital of Pennsylvania and told you such, I would not be lying. But what I told you would be incorrect, as the capital is Harrisburg. So, you could say I was telling the truth, but what I said wasn't true. Of course, "telling the truth", in conversational-speak, simply means I was being honest - it does not speak to the actual truth of a claim. I can be honest and yet incorrect. Likewise, I could be dishonest and correct, or dishonest and incorrect, or honest and correct.

Good. So I suppose you can make it clear to me, who is baffled by it.

---------- Post added 12-14-2009 at 07:24 AM ----------



Indeed. ..............

There is a difference between telling the truth, and being truthful. You can tell the truth without being truthful, and you can be truthful without telling the truth.

I do appreciate your Socratic method kennethamy. It really has helped me reach a clearer understanding than I started with but I have reached a point that is meaningful to me. I've even illustrated it mathematical terms, or more precisely geometrical terms. Possibly, other people understand me where you do not.

I do wonder a little where on the two-dimensional axis of truth your failure to recognize my points and your inability to understand my arguments actually lies.

In any case, I think I have learned something through this discussion. I have a better understanding of truth than I did before. I don't think it is hubris to make such a claim. After all, there is Socratic method but there is also Socratic irony.

And this brings me to my final order of business:

For knowing that he does not know, I nominate kennethamy for today's wisest person on the forum prize. Will anyone second the motion???

:bigsmile:

Deckard,

You wish to make the distinction between:

A.) Saying what is true (stating a fact, "factual truth")
B.) Saying what we believe to be true (not lying, "honest truth")

This is what you mean by "truth is two dimensional", right? There is honesty, and there is correspondance with reality or fact. And these things are different. That is true.

Perhaps you're trying to get to the bottom of someone being honest but also not being correct about a fact. If I sincerely believed that Philadelphia was the capital of Pennsylvania and told you such, I would not be lying. But what I told you would be incorrect, as the capital is Harrisburg. So, you could say I was telling the truth, but what I said wasn't true. Of course, "telling the truth", in conversational-speak, simply means I was being honest - it does not speak to the actual truth of a claim. I can be honest and yet incorrect. Likewise, I could be dishonest and correct, or dishonest and incorrect, or honest and correct.

That is what I just said. Did you read my post? And I'd recommend you use "be honest" instead of "tell the truth". It makes things less confusing. Just say: There is a difference between being honest, and being truthful. You can be honest without being truthful, and you can be truthful without being honest.

And that was the distinction he was trying to make. Instead of "telling the truth/being honest" he used "honest truth", and instead of "being truthful" he used "factual truth".

I think we now have this debacle cleared up.

Socrates was ironic because he rightly thought that most of his interlocutors were fools, and pretty hopeless.

I believe Socratic Irony is more of a teaching tactic. I think Socrates was more inclined to teach and seek the truth with others than he was to dismiss others as hopeless fools. But it's debatable.

But I thought that being honest is the same as being truthful. How can you be the one and not the other. You can tell the truth without being honest, and be honest without telling the truth. So, I don't think that you did say what I said. Nor did Deckard. Although, I agree, it was hard to tell.

Just to make my view clear:

1. There is no difference between being honest, and being truthful
2. There is a big difference between telling the truth, and being truthful.

It's only unclear because we are using different words to mean the same thing. I thought your "telling the truth" was "being honest", but it appears your "being truthful" is "being honest". There is no dispute here. We agree.

:surrender:

Well, I would not have distinguished between "truthfulness" and "telling the truth" had I meant that. In any case, that is the difference between "truthfulness" and "telling the truth" in English.

In English, people often use "telling the truth" synonymously with "being honest". When the judge makes you swear to tell the truth, he is referring to your honesty; he is making you swear not to lie.