| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 241.1 | what is truth? | DECWET::JWHITE | the company of intelligent women | Wed Jul 11 1990 21:07 | 6 |
|
i am not comfortable with 'honesty' and 'truth'
i do, however, believe passionately in fairness
|
| 241.2 | Philosophical rathole? | YUPPY::DAVIESA | Grail seeker | Thu Jul 12 1990 09:23 | 10 |
|
re: -1
How do you decide on a "fair" course of action without havig first
made a judgement about the truth (of, say, a situation) or
about how honest you wish to be with other individuals concerned?
|
| 241.3 | | GOLF::KINGR | Eat healthy, stay fit, die anyway!!!! | Thu Jul 12 1990 12:23 | 3 |
| SOme things are better not said....
REK
|
| 241.5 | honesty .ne. tactlessness | HEFTY::CHARBONND | the angels won't have it | Fri Jul 13 1990 09:13 | 9 |
| 'Being honest' doesn't mean 'bluntly, tactlessly telling the
whole truth at all times.' It can mean 'refusing to lie, and
telling the parts of the truth that -contribute- to the
relationship.'
Illustration : "Your technique isn't satisfying me." vs. "I like
it when you do X and need/would like more of it." Both true
statements, one tactless, one accentuating the positive while
leaving the negative unsaid.
|
| 241.6 | | LEZAH::BOBBITT | screenage mutant ninja demos | Fri Jul 13 1990 09:46 | 15 |
| re: .4
Yeah. What he said.
Goes double for me.
and when it comes to meeting someone's needs when you just don't have
the energy or whatever - you may HONESTLY abrogate your own needs for
theirs temporarily. Love is giving, particularly when your loved one
needs it most. You balance your needs and their needs in your head,
and if you feel they need more, you may decide you HONESTLY want to do
what they need. You don't have to lie to do it, though ....
-Jody
|
| 241.7 | there are many truths | TINCUP::KOLBE | The dilettante debutante | Fri Jul 13 1990 15:58 | 16 |
| < 'Being honest' doesn't mean 'bluntly, tactlessly telling the
< whole truth at all times.' It can mean 'refusing to lie, and
< telling the parts of the truth that -contribute- to the
< relationship.'
Yes, telling the parts of the truth that can help and not perhaps
mentioning everything. That's what I call situational honesty.
For all we say we want the whole truth I'm not sure that's what we are
ready to hear. There have been times in my life when I needed to hear
the brutal truth and learn to accept it. There have been times when it
would have crushed what little confidence I had left and destroyed me.
I wonder how many of us are even totally truthful to ourselves. And I
know it's quite possible to lie to yourself, I've, unfortuantely, done it
myself. liesl
|
| 241.9 | :-) | GUESS::DERAMO | Dan D'Eramo | Sun Jul 15 1990 20:38 | 17 |
| <<< RANGER::$2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;1 >>>
-< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 241.8 Lets be absolutely honest 8 of 8
AERIE::THOMPSON "trying real hard to adjust ..." 25 lines 13-JUL-1990 17:55
^^^ ^^^^^
-< what is TRUTH and how do we know it is REALLY true ? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Or the other approach - don't over-embellish and stick to just
>> the ABSOLUTE AND TRUTHFUL FACTS of any situation ... 9/13/90 17:58
^ ^^^^^
So, why the two month, three minute discrepancy? I mean,
if we can't trust you to tell us the time, ... :-)
Dan
|
| 241.10 | this is what happens when you actually go to class | DECWET::JWHITE | the company of intelligent women | Mon Jul 16 1990 12:53 | 21 |
|
re:.0,.2
i've re-read the base-note and i think its intent is different
from what i was thinking in .1.
what i guess the base note suggested to me was 'rational ethics'.
that is, ethics based on the logical application of moral imperatives.
it is this tradition of ethics (pretty much mainstream in western
culture) that i'm not comfortable with. it implies that 'truth' is
a) 'objectively' knowable and b) morally compelling. non-rational
ethics suggests that 'objective truth' is not knowable and that what
compels us morally has little or nothing to do with either 'objective
truth' or the application of rational/logical structures.
so, more to the point of the base note, my feeling is that if
you feel you are treating the people you deal with fairly
based on what you know, then i don't think you owe everyone
complete honesty.
|
| 241.11 | | TINCUP::KOLBE | The dilettante debutante | Mon Jul 16 1990 15:16 | 9 |
| < so, more to the point of the base note, my feeling is that if
< you feel you are treating the people you deal with fairly
< based on what you know, then i don't think you owe everyone
< complete honesty.
That's it exactly Joe. There is a time and a place for everything,
including complete honesty. But some things are best left unsaid or
kept for more appropriate occasions. liesl
|
| 241.13 | I don't want to know either! | SENIOR::PENNING | | Thu Jul 19 1990 13:29 | 8 |
|
I think that alot of things should not be said. As the old saying
goes" What she doesn't know won't hurt her." I think "what she doesn't
know would KILL her" if of course she ever found out.
wildman
|
| 241.14 | a note of a different color! | TLE::D_CARROLL | Assume nothing | Thu Jul 19 1990 14:30 | 31 |
| > I think that alot of things should not be said. As the old saying
> goes" What she doesn't know won't hurt her." I think "what she doesn't
> know would KILL her" if of course she ever found out.
Whoa, wait a minute, that's a far cry from "One doesn't always have to tell
the whole and absolute truth if it would hurt someone".
The statement above implies that you (generic) did something *deliberately*
that you *knew* you couldn't tell her, and that I don't think is ethical.
I am not a proponent of "complete honesty at all times is awlways the best
policy"; like some other people have said here, I sometimes think that it is
best to keep some things to yourself, or wait till a better time.
That does *not* mean it is okay to *do* bad things that you don't want someone
else to know about with the justification that you won't have to tell her
since it will hurt her to know.
So I guess what I am saying is that maybe you are right that it would KILL
her if she knew, and maybe you are ethically correct not to tell her, but you
are ethically WRONG to do something that would KILL her if she found out,
even if she never finds out. Just because in some situations it may be
ethically okay not to be honest, that doesn't mean that it was ethically
correct to get yourself into such a situation in the first place!
ie: It might be ethically correct not to tell your wife you were cheating
on her, since it would kill her to know, but it was ethically wrong to
cheat on her in the first place, you can't turn around and defend yourself
by saying "what she doesn't know won't hurt her."
D!
|
| 241.15 | Who me? | SENIOR::PENNING | | Thu Jul 19 1990 15:04 | 15 |
|
Hi D!,
Seemed to get you a tad fired up, thats good. I have never cheated
on my wife and don't plan too. I do how ever like to flirt. Which I do
know could become dangerous. I was just thinking back to past
relationships I have had, and then to be confronted by one of these
flings and having my wife ask "who was that and what did you do with her?"
Well if she knew it would blow her mind, and the ball is also in the
other court when we happen to run into one of her old boyfreinds. I
would inturn probably flip.
Sometimes silence says more than words.
Wildman
|