If everyone spoke the truth...

[Physia]

If everyone spoke the truth, how do you think the world would be different?

 

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

most conflict occurs not because of lies but because of truths that does not coincide with another truth. for example there are two persons facing each other in the middle the other guy holds a coin, he sees the heads, and the other sees the tails. if one says he sees the heads, and the other says he sees the tail, and they did not agree, can each other say that the other is lying? the fact is that they are both seeing the coin, the truth is they are seeing only one side of the coin...

everybody speaks of the truth, it wouldnt be different. Things have been that way, it's just that everybody does not bother to see otherwise...

 

Other answers are also interesting:

 

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ArmqOFLPHyJS2ySISox2PWvpy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071101112422AAHUOip

 

I like this one:

"In your question, lies the answer. If everyone told the truth in our world, it would not be our world."

 

Truth is three things:

Truth can be personal: What you think of another person, religion, race, and telling them in their face being frank and honest.

 

Truth can be documented: Facts, reliable data, witnesses to events can be truisms.

 

Truth can be fabricated: Might is right, to the Victor go the spoils as they say, and thus each create their own truths.

[mooeypoo]

Truth is too subjective to define, I think. My truth is different than yours; I would like to say that this is only true for feelings or opinions, but people tend to strongly believe in ignorant 'truths' that aren't truths at all (pseudoscience, for instance)

 

I think it's also important to remember that Politics, for example, is not QUITE lying, but it's sometimes avoiding truth - and if used wisely, it can prevent misunderstandings and conflict.

 

Other than the human tendency to lie, there's a human tendency to be defensive.. sometimes being "political" and either 'not telling' the full truth or 'beautifying' the truth is needed, specifically when your partner in a debate is on the defensive mode.

 

In short, I think it would be terrible if everyone always told the truth. There's a reason why we sometimes lie, and though lying shouldn't be a way of life, it isn't such a bad thing, at times, if used correctly (and fairly, I guess).

 

Anyways that's my two cents (and some)

 

~moo

[iNow]

There's no such thing as truth. It is an ideal never realized. All there is is subjective interpretation. You may find overlap, and parallels across perceivers, but there is no truth. To claim otherwise is to delude oneself and those who waste their time listening.

[mooeypoo]

There's no such thing as truth. It is an ideal never realized. All there is is subjective interpretation. You may find overlap, and parallels across perceivers, but there is no truth. To claim otherwise is to delude oneself and those who waste their time listening.

 

That was very truthful..

 

 

 

 

 

I agree, btw.

[ydoaPs]

There's no such thing as truth.

 

Is that the truth?

 

 

Isn't convincing someone that it's true that there is no such thing as truth somewhat self defeating?

[iNow]

Thanks both. Made me smile.

 

 

Is that the truth?

That depends on who you ask.

[ydoaPs]

Thanks both. Made me smile.

 

 

 

That depends on who you ask.

There is no logical way in which the statement "There is no truth" can be true. If we assume that the statement is true, then by virtue of being true, the statement is false. If we assume it is false, then it is false.

[iNow]

There's no such thing as truth. It is an ideal never realized. All there is is subjective interpretation. You may find overlap, and parallels across perceivers, but there is no truth. To claim otherwise is to delude oneself and those who waste their time listening.

 

There is no logical way in which the statement "There is no truth" can be true. If we assume that the statement is true, then by virtue of being true, the statement is false. If we assume it is false, then it is false.

 

Re-written for yourdadonapogos:

 

 

The concept of truth is intangible and ethereal. It tends toward an unattainable ideal, and inconsistencies appear when attemps are made to set rigid parameters to define or describe it in any static way. The basis of this inconsistency can be explained in terms of the differing perceptions of individuals, and the different biological machinery involved with their interactions with the universe. When one refers to truth, that truth is generally representative of a concept or definition which shares a high degree of overlap and parallels across perceivers. When one claims that there is some central absolute version of "truth" which is not subject to change, and which does not account for the dynamic nature of information processing and understanding, the individual doing so is no longer without error, and the truth they have described becomes only a subjective interpretation, hence losing it's suggested quality of absolute.

 

 

 

Frankly, I like my first one better, but your objection is valid so I gave it another shot.

[ydoaPs]

Re-written for yourdadonapogos:

 

 

The concept of truth is intangible and ethereal. It tends toward an unattainable ideal, and inconsistencies appear when attemps are made to set rigid parameters to define or describe it in any static way. The basis of this inconsistency can be explained in terms of the differing perceptions of individuals, and the different biological machinery involved with their interactions with the universe. When one refers to truth, that truth is generally representative of a concept or definition which shares a high degree of overlap and parallels across perceivers. When one claims that there is some central absolute version of "truth" which is not subject to change, and which does not account for the dynamic nature of information processing and understanding, the individual doing so is no longer without error, and the truth they have described becomes only a subjective interpretation, hence losing it's suggested quality of absolute.

 

 

 

Frankly, I like my first one better, but your objection is valid so I gave it another shot.

The subjectiveness of human perception of truth does not necessitate subjectiveness of truth itself. There can be absolute truth. The statement "an attraction exists between all massive objects" is absolute truth.

[iNow]

The subjectiveness of human perception of truth does not necessitate subjectiveness of truth itself. There can be absolute truth. The statement "an attraction exists between all massive objects" is absolute truth.

 

This is a bit pedantic, but what if those two massive objects had opposite magnetic charges causing them to repel? Your truth is no longer absolute.

[ydoaPs]

This is a bit pedantic, but what if those two massive objects had opposite magnetic charges causing them to repel? Your truth is no longer absolute.

 

There is both an attraction and a repulsion. They are two separate effects. They may be competing effects, but the attraction is still there; it is just countered by the repulsion.

[iNow]

Ok. I cede the argument. I wrote that last night after several glasses of red wine, and I was in a hurry to close my laptop and spend some time with my girlfriend. I gave it another shot this morning, but as much as I enjoy fighting, this is not one I'm going to enter into. You're right. Take the comment for what it's worth.

 

I see a paradox here, but I'm not a philospher who wallows in such things, so I cannot adequately describe what I'm thinking about the idea of "truth." I don't think there is any such thing. I think it's all interpretation. Cheers.