|
A_Bluenoser posted:Of course they do, as evidenced by the fact that many will go to extraordinary lengths - tell almost any lie, construct almost any justification you can imagine - to avoid feeling it (note that the very poor and every one in between does this as well). A great deal of behaviour (including that of a certain recent US and a current Russian President) can be explained by this. I, don't think one can just say that the current situation anywhere is "just" caused by a single dude trying to avoid feeling shame. It'd be interesting to try and prove it, but I suspect that there is more to it than that. If shame were enough to make people change their behavior then things would be significantly different. A_Bluenoser posted:
I have always understood suffering as being a thing wider than the individual and an external thing applied to people that must be remedied. It can come from internal feelings, but is ultimately caused by external factors. You also cannot experience suffering if there is no outside to impose it. But suffering is still imposed due to effects from an exterior source. The thing is that there are several factors that mean that suffering will be experienced by a great deal of people in almost all circumstances. We cannot go "getting stabbed is only suffering because you believe it to be" can we? Everyone, bar the cenobites, would not want to be stabbed and it would cause suffering. The abstract concept and approach to suffering is important because material factors can mitigate suffering. But there is still suffering from those things. The good of the situation outweighed the suffering because you enjoy being on a boat, but the suffering still happened. A_Bluenoser posted:The assholery of the rich man has the potential to have a much broader negative effect then the assholery of the poor man and is therefore of more concern but that does not mean that it is fundamentally different in kind - just scale. The scale renders the difference one of kind. You cannot simply boil everything down to individuals it is a wider thing than that. I'm sorry for the short reply, but I have to go to work soon, and I want to answer but don't want to be late. Sorry again. Bar Ran Dun posted:Edit 3: I am angry and tired for reasons unrelated to this thread. I should be kinder and less antagonistic. You never actually defined the terms you used, you just expect us to know it already. I must admit I am also a little cross at not asking for years. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 09:50 on Oct 30, 2022 |
#
?
Oct 30, 2022 09:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:53 |
|
|
Josef bugman posted:You also cannot experience suffering if there is no outside to impose it. my mother-in-law passed away a few months ago. at her first dana, the priest said something that really struck me. "what is the cause of this pain? loved ones." if you love someone, and realize that your time with them is very limited due to your own mortality and theirs, and that the more of your life you share with them, the greater the chance that you will see them sick or hurt or dead and vice versa, and that's some immense suffering. i'm not sure i'd call that "imposed". part of the cause is the external factor, the person you love. but that's only half, the other half is your love for that person. that's not an outside force being imposed on you, that comes from you. this doesn't mean of course that loving someone should be avoided, so as to avoid the suffering. but it is a constant reminder of the temporary nature of this life and of the cause of suffering, but also that it is living. Earwicker fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Oct 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2022 17:01
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I have always understood suffering as being a thing wider than the individual and an external thing applied to people that must be remedied. It can come from internal feelings, but is ultimately caused by external factors. You also cannot experience suffering if there is no outside to impose it. But suffering is still imposed due to effects from an exterior source. The thing is that there are several factors that mean that suffering will be experienced by a great deal of people in almost all circumstances. We cannot go "getting stabbed is only suffering because you believe it to be" can we? Everyone, bar the cenobites, would not want to be stabbed and it would cause suffering. The abstract concept and approach to suffering is important because material factors can mitigate suffering.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2022 18:56
|
|
|
One of the criticisms the Jewish elders leveled against Jesus and his disciples is that they didn't wash their hands before they ate. I'm with the elders on this one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2022 19:03
|
|
|
Prurient Squid posted:One of the criticisms the Jewish elders leveled against Jesus and his disciples is that they didn't wash their hands before they ate. It's more of a perfunctory ritual rinse I believe. Granted that I'm a Jesus stan, he was making a point about whether the details of Law or the underlying Ethic are more important.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2022 19:09
|
|
|
Even a perfunctory ritual rinse is better than nothing! But I suppose Jesus came for everyone, both those in the Clean Hands Club and those... not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2022 19:13
|
|
|
In the NIV, Jesus never gets on a ship but he does have a little boat, and when things get too much for him he takes the boat off to a little island to have a ponder. (ok the island is my mental interpretation)
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2022 19:16
|
|
|
You know who liked washing their hands? Lady Macbeth, think on that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2022 19:32
|
|
|
Let's remember today that Jesus Christ's ministry on Earth included doing a little trolling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2022 19:35
|
|
|
Nessus posted:You're working from a fundamentally different idea of suffering than I am, that's for sure. That's fair. I might be using the terms incorrectly. I've done that before.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2022 19:50
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:You never actually defined the terms you used, you just expect us to know it already. I must admit I am also a little cross at not asking for years. I’ve had these specific discussions many many times on this website. Decade + worth of times. I used to go back to source materials and directly quote where terms were defined. But there is something I learned about these conversations. The real argument is not the back and forth between us. It’s when each of us internally confronts our own beliefs that we risk when we explain them to others. It’s not so much what I think myth is. It is: Will you find your own understanding of the symbol “myth” and what you think it points to adequate to you in the context of your interactions with other people?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2022 20:17
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I, don't think one can just say that the current situation anywhere is "just" caused by a single dude trying to avoid feeling shame. It'd be interesting to try and prove it, but I suspect that there is more to it than that. It is not just caused by that of course, it is one cause out of many, but that does not alter the point that I am making that trying to avoid feeling shame is certainly a pretty big motivating factor for the behaviour of a lot of people that would otherwise seem illogical. I would point the old saying "people don't get in trouble so much for the scandal as for the attempt to cover it up afterwards" as further evidence of this. Josef bugman posted:If shame were enough to make people change their behavior then things would be significantly different. Shame certainly changes people's behaviour; however frequently it does not change it for the better. Josef bugman posted:I have always understood suffering as being a thing wider than the individual and an external thing applied to people that must be remedied. It can come from internal feelings, but is ultimately caused by external factors. You also cannot experience suffering if there is no outside to impose it. But suffering is still imposed due to effects from an exterior source. The thing is that there are several factors that mean that suffering will be experienced by a great deal of people in almost all circumstances. We cannot go "getting stabbed is only suffering because you believe it to be" can we? Everyone, bar the cenobites, would not want to be stabbed and it would cause suffering. The abstract concept and approach to suffering is important because material factors can mitigate suffering. And I can only agree with what others have said: this does not match the definition of suffering I have worked with and I think you are collapsing several distinct concepts together to the detriment of analysis and understanding. Suffering can definitely be cause by external factors (although I don't think that is the only source of it) but there is not necessarily a one-to-one mapping between external factors and suffering in a given individual. Something that one person responds to with suffering another person may not. And no, I think suffering cannot be abstract, it is something that is experienced by an individual and if you are talking about something collective then you are talking about something else. There are certainly many things that will cause most people to suffer and can be addressed collectively but the suffering is still something that is experienced individually and may actually be experienced in different ways. The individual can never be forgotten even when we discuss the largest issues. This is actually crucial when you think about morals and sin. There is the moral principle that people must be treated as ends in themselves and not as means to an end, or, as Terry Pratchett put it more concretely in the voice of Granny Weatherwax "sin is what happens when you start to treat people as things": to me as soon as you start to abstract things like suffering and forget the individuals you are getting dangerously close to "treating people as things". From this arises such thoughts as "one death is a tragedy, one million deaths is a statistic", the proletariat starts to look very "lumpen", and then the pogroms start. Josef bugman posted:But there is still suffering from those things. The good of the situation outweighed the suffering because you enjoy being on a boat, but the suffering still happened. No you are simply incorrect: I. Did. Not. Suffer. My internal response to these things was not suffering: they were part of the experience of that day, and my experience of the day would have been no better had I been warm, had dry socks, and not scraped my hand. These all made me alive and were part of the great experience. My suffering is something that I experience and is mine alone. I don't mean to sound harsh here but I can put this in no other way: I did not experience suffering and you cannot say that I did - you do not have that power over me. Josef bugman posted:The scale renders the difference one of kind. You cannot simply boil everything down to individuals it is a wider thing than that. For me scale is a difference in scale (and can certainly affect the level of concern and may entail different approaches to rectify): a difference in kind for me would be to postulate that the motivating factors for the assholery are something other than human assholery and I don't think that postulate can be sustained. This is I suppose partly a quibble over definition but I think maintaining the distinction is important.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 02:04
|
|
|
You can have a range of experiences without suffering, or with less. One example I used when discussing it with, I believe, Paramemetic or someone in the earlier Buddhism thread, was: If you struck the Buddha in the leg with a sledgehammer, and we assume he did not use some supernatural attainment to avoid it, his bone would break - his human nervous system would present the relevant sensations. He might even say "ow" or "oof," on reflex. And he would be unable to walk until the leg healed. But his attainment would mean that he would not experience suffering, and would presumably chill out and teach in the area. You would have a very high chance of being stuck there by the rains, listening to him, and becoming a monk. If by contrast you struck me, a mere hunam, in the leg with a sledgehammer, I would surely say a lot more than "oof" and would probably complain at great and severe length on the matter. I would probably need painkiller medication. I would struggle and suffer through the healing process, and the many setbacks it would present to householder life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 02:22
|
|
|
I'd like to respond to Stalin's "the death of one is a tragedy" quote. The quote is dated to the time that Stalin was the head of munitions, at this time the forced deportations of populations, show trials etc had not yet occured. Also the person who repeated the quote at the time said something along the lines of "I don't know if Stalin actually said this but doesn't it say everything that I think he might have". I think fact checkers tried to find the roots of the quotation and, basically, there's a whole history of quotes along the lines of "he who kills a single man is called a murderer but he who kills a million in war is reckoned a hero". So it's an old theme. I know you were giving an illustration. Sorry for the derail. Oh, on a related note. Lenin's famous "useful idiots" quote. I've never in my life seen Lenin talk about useful idiots but I did read a line in Trotsky on Britain where he mentions the "useful stupidities" of bourgeois public opinion. I think that's the origin of it but that's my own judgement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 08:06
|
|
|
Prurient Squid posted:I'd like to respond to Stalin's "the death of one is a tragedy" quote. The quote is dated to the time that Stalin was the head of munitions, at this time the forced deportations of populations, show trials etc had not yet occured. Also the person who repeated the quote at the time said something along the lines of "I don't know if Stalin actually said this but doesn't it say everything that I think he might have". There's a quote from St. Augustine's City of God which, despite never reading the full work myself, I've never forgotten: For it was a witty and truthful rejoinder which was given by a captured pirate to Alexander the Great. The king asked the fellow, “What is your idea, in infesting the sea?” And the pirate answered, with uninhibited insolence, “The same as yours, in infesting the earth! But because I do it with a tiny craft, I’m called a pirate; because you have a mighty navy, you’re called an emperor.” One man, one robber, vs. a million men and an emperor. History has shown we adore Alexander and Napoleon while hating robbers. Perhaps that's all justice is, remembering in a certain way. I'm pretty sure this is what I believe. Even if morals and God exist totally independently of us, it is human will and belief which governs the world. We make our own heroes and villains, and we choose one murder is a tragedy but a million is a glorious event. Although even that is a bit of a distortion. It's more that we forgive the killings in the latter case because they were a side-effect of a grand occasion like conquering huge swaths of land. We can admire that. We can't admire stealing a wallet. NikkolasKing fucked around with this message at 08:34 on Oct 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 08:30
|
|
|
I must simply be using suffering wrongly. To me suffering is not a choice it is something that happens. It is pain forced in to you from the outside. It's like how I view "lies" as saying something that isn't true. Even when it's out of ignorance, it's still a lie. Again at work for 10 hours today, so will try and do a better response to everyone's well thought out and kind replies later in the day. Keep safe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 11:25
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I must simply be using suffering wrongly. To me suffering is not a choice it is something that happens. It is pain forced in to you from the outside. I haven't been saying anything bc I don't want to argue in this thread, but in the sense of the word that most people out in the world use as an everyday piece of vocabulary, you're not using it incorrectly. It really seems like there's a second sense that people here use
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 12:12
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I must simply be using suffering wrongly. To me suffering is not a choice it is something that happens. It is pain forced in to you from the outside. That's definitely not what I would consider the usual definition of 'lie'. Untruth, sure. Like if I genuinely think someone went to the zoo and I say 'Bob went to the zoo' but it turns out he changed his mind and went to the beach, I didn't tell a lie. But I did say something untrue. It's not that suffering is a choice freely made, I don't think. It's that some people may be able to transcend suffering.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 12:12
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I must simply be using suffering wrongly. To me suffering is not a choice it is something that happens. It is pain forced in to you from the outside. Part of the issue is that some people posting here are Buddhists, and Buddhists do not draw a distinction between internal and external phenomena except when it is helpful to do so. A lot of other traditions have similar currents among contemplatives. If we are aware of something inside or outside of ourselves, and we don't want it to be the case, or want something else to be the case, we're not centered and we thrash around. For an internal example, we might be a little arrogant and it comes up if someone makes us feel insecure. Instead of accepting it and learning from it, we cringe and want it to go away when we recognize it, or we do unhealthy things reactively to make us not see it. In other religions, one might understand this as separation from God or a failure to surrender fully, because they teach that everything is a manifestation of God's will and love, even the hard things. Buddhists call this instability or separation suffering, and it disassociates us from some deeply wonderful things about reality. If someone is very grounded in that kind of forbearance, everything that is painful is profoundly easier to accept and a Buddhist would say that there may be pain, but we are not suffering.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 12:35
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:It's like how I view "lies" as saying something that isn't true. Even when it's out of ignorance, it's still a lie. This is also a highly unconventional definition of "lie". I have never encountered any philosophy that does not make a distinction between mistake and intentional deception. If I tell someone the meeting is at 17:00 because that is the latest memo I got but it has actually been moved to 18:00 and no-one told me then I have told the other person something in error but I have not lied - I have told the truth as I knew it to be. If I know the meeting has moved to 18:00 but still tell them it is at 17:00 then I have lied - I have not told the truth as I know it to be. The person may miss the meeting either way but the underlying reason is different and their reaction to me will probably be different as well. These distinctions are actually important and are part of the basis for understanding humans. Collapsing them all together inhabits understanding human behaviour and (in my opinion) degrades and cheapens humanity. You seem to want to collapse a whole pile of different things into simple black-and-white concepts but people just aren't that simple! You seem to want to deny all agency to at least certain people when they responding to the situations they are presented with and this is just not correct. This is evidenced by the fact that people do not respond to their situations the way you think they should but instead of recognizing their agency it seems you get confused and seem to conclude that they are somehow mistaken or disordered instead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 12:57
|
|
|
corn haver posted:I don't think it's necessarily wrong to use one word to mean something different from other people here, as pain and suffering are usually used in similar ways. It just might be confusing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 13:10
|
|
|
How can you prove something isn't a lie when it's an untruth? It seems as if it would be very easy to say "oh I am mistaken" when you are lying, because it's hard to prove if someone knew something beforehand. Its not commonly held as a belief, I'm not sure if anyone but me holds it tbh, but it seems like something to think about. A_Bluenoser posted:You seem to want to deny all agency to at least certain people when they responding to the situations they are presented with and this is just not correct. This is evidenced by the fact that people do not respond to their situations the way you think they should but instead of recognizing their agency it seems you get confused and seem to conclude that they are somehow mistaken or disordered instead. I'm... Not denying agency to people? I don't see how I'm doing that? We cannot will ourselves not to be hungry or cold or dying. We suffer those things. I'm not saying that people don't believe they didn't suffer, but what do we extend that to? If someone says "Being hit with sticks every day never did me any harm" do we believe the person? If someone tells you "they are fine" after they have obviously been crying, do we believe them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 13:24
|
|
|
To be totally fair a lot of Buddhist concepts are *deeply* confusing, at least to people who've grown up in the sort of Abrahamic Western traditions. I learn a lot just by reading this thread, but translation issues mean we end up with a lot of concepts that use words that mean something different in everyday use than in Buddhist practice. Like 'emptiness' which sounds bad unless you read up on what it means in context.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 13:26
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:How can you prove something isn't a lie when it's an untruth? It seems as if it would be very easy to say "oh I am mistaken" when you are lying, because it's hard to prove if someone knew something beforehand. I don't understand what you mean, JB. A lie is a specific thing. It's worth having words that mean things. There is a distinction between being mistaken and being deceptive. Why are we talking about proof? We weren't discussing, like, court cases.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 13:27
|
|
|
I just had a thought. When you watch a show you want the hero to have a "happy ending". But in reality there is no happy ending, just the eternal present. That wouldn't make for good television I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 13:30
|
|
|
Prurient Squid posted:I just had a thought. When you watch a show you want the hero to have a "happy ending". But in reality there is no happy ending, just the eternal present. Into the Woods explores what happens after the happy ending but manages not to be wildly cynical. Don't watch the Disney movie if you decide to look for it - there's a filmed version of the 80s production you can find on youtube that's MUCH better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 13:32
|
|
|
Happy Hallowe'en y'all
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 13:36
|
|
|
HopperUK posted:I don't understand what you mean, JB. A lie is a specific thing. It's worth having words that mean things. There is a distinction between being mistaken and being deceptive. Why are we talking about proof? We weren't discussing, like, court cases. Is it? I don't know how we prove something was said as a specific "lie" vs that person simply being mistaken. I mean everything needs a proof. Otherwise how do we know it? Happy Halloween!
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 13:39
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Is it? I don't know how we prove something was said as a specific "lie" vs that person simply being mistaken. I mean everything needs a proof. Otherwise how do we know it? No, the person was either deceptive or mistaken - that is a question of reality. Whether you can determine which is it was is a different question- it is a question of what can be know. These are absolutely distinct things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 13:49
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Is it? I don't know how we prove something was said as a specific "lie" vs that person simply being mistaken. I mean everything needs a proof. Otherwise how do we know it? The classical model was "justified true belief" - it's true, you believe or accept it, and you have some kind of justification for believing it (does not have to be conclusive). Gettier pointed out a problem with this, to everyone's discomfort, the most simple form of which is "you're out and about, and want to know the time. You see a church clock say ten to three. You now believe the time is ten to three, and have justification for believing it (clocks tell the time). Unbeknownst to you, the clock does not work. However, the time *is* ten to three, so you have a justified true belief about the time - which you arrived at by looking at a broken clock." One possible solution to this problem, and the one I believe you would take, is to redefine "justified" to be much stricter. You must know the clock is working. You must know the clock was set at the right time. You must know that there is not a secret mirror in your environment, flipping the image of the clock when it's actually ten past nine... The concept of knowledge thus becomes so rare as to be useless. The opposite seems to have happened with your definition of lies. Without the ability to know whether someone is sincerely misinformed, you've decided to brand them all with a harsh label, rather than give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Seems kind of hosed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 13:53
|
|
|
A_Bluenoser posted:No, the person was either deceptive or mistaken - that is a question of reality. Whether you can determine which is it was is a different question- it is a question of what can be know. These are absolutely distinct things. We need a knowledge of what the person intended when they said the information don't we. We need to prove that reality, and that can be tricky. To be completely honest with you, I am not sure that we can know the full reasoning behind why we do things. I will take your reasoning. Sorry if I am being truculent or uncivil. Also I'm not sure it's a harsh label. I think everyone lies but that doesn't make people bad, it matters what effect the lie has that makes it bad or not. Though again, this is using my own definitions and again I'm probably being very silly about this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 14:27
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Though again, this is using my own definitions and again I'm probably being very silly about this. While I agree with you on the suffering thing, words do have agreed upon definitions and using your own makes communication break down
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 14:36
|
|
|
If I say "you're useless", and I mean "nobody has a defined use, they have to make their own", then someone is still going to end up punching me in the face.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 14:38
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:We need a knowledge of what the person intended when they said the information don't we. We need to prove that reality, and that can be tricky. Our reaction will be based what we can know but what the other person actually did is independent of what we do or do not know. These are distinct things and must be treated as such. This is a very basic philosophical distinction (episiotomy vs. metaphysics if I recall the terminology correcty) that has been around for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 14:44
|
|
|
A_Bluenoser posted:Our reaction will be based what we can know but what the other person actually did is independent of what we do or do not know. These are distinct things and must be treated as such. This is a very basic philosophical distinction (episiotomy vs. metaphysics if I recall the terminology correcty) that has been around for a long time. If we know what was said by them was untrue, how do we determine if its a lie other than by knowing the intent of the person? Killingyouguy! posted:While I agree with you on the suffering thing, words do have agreed upon definitions and using your own makes communication break down Freudian posted:If I say "you're useless", and I mean "nobody has a defined use, they have to make their own", then someone is still going to end up punching me in the face. That's fair. Sorry again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 14:51
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:If we know what was said by them was untrue, how do we determine if its a lie other than by knowing the intent of the person? Perhaps we cannot, perhaps we can only guess. This does not alter the fact that the other person either made a mistake or engaged in deception: the difference between the two is internal to them. What distinguishes the two is in their intent, not our knowledge. What we know is irrelevant to whether or not they lied. What we know and what they actually did are two distinct things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 15:29
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:If we know what was said by them was untrue, how do we determine if its a lie other than by knowing the intent of the person? You can't conclusively prove that something is a lie, but you can determine what's most likely by, for example, working out what knowledge they had access to when they made that false statement. If I say "Tommy lives on Winchester Avenue", I might think that's true, but that's much less likely if you find out I saw him moving out, or if I liked a post he made about his new place on Mulberry Plaza. I could have forgotten, so it might not be a lie, but it's probably a lie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 15:32
|
|
|
A_Bluenoser posted:Perhaps we cannot, perhaps we can only guess. This does not alter the fact that the other person either made a mistake or engaged in deception: the difference between the two is internal to them. What distinguishes the two is in their intent, not our knowledge. What we know is irrelevant to whether or not they lied. What we know and what they actually did are two distinct things. Freudian posted:You can't conclusively prove that something is a lie, but you can determine what's most likely by, for example, working out what knowledge they had access to when they made that false statement. If I say "Tommy lives on Winchester Avenue", I might think that's true, but that's much less likely if you find out I saw him moving out, or if I liked a post he made about his new place on Mulberry Plaza. I could have forgotten, so it might not be a lie, but it's probably a lie. So we can't tell but can suspect. That is fair enough. But does the other person know if they intended to deceive? Most likely they do, but i wonder how much self deception there is involved in how we want and think about stuff. Sorry for making GBS threads up the thread again. Keep safe everyone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 15:53
|
|
|
How do we "tell" anything about someone's "internal" state? Only by external criteria.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 16:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:53 |
|
|
Josef bugman posted:How can you prove something isn't a lie when it's an untruth? if someone is stating an untruth either they are doing so intentionally (which is lying) or they possess incorrect information, which might not be their fault at all. you find out which it is by talking to them and/or learning more about the situation, who had what information and when etc. it can't always be done, and there's no real specific way to do it beyond that because this is such a vast and general subject, but a basic conversation or a little bit of research is usually a good starting point. Josef bugman posted:But does the other person know if they intended to deceive there's no easy answer to that question because there are varying degrees of belief in what one is saying. for example, sometimes a person states something they don't entirely believe is true, but that they want to be true, and they are saying it less in an attempt to convince others, and more in an attempt to reassure themselves. i suspect this is especially common in many religious contexts, or in many difficult emotional and traumatic situations. in that kind of case the person stating an untruth might actually possess the correct information, but they don't want to face it, maybe to the point where on some level internally they just can't see it. Earwicker fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Oct 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 16:57
|
|