Timeline for Can a true sentence be a lie?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 15, 2020 at 17:32 | comment | added | J D | @TannerSwett Maybe you can clarify. The verb for that action in poker is 'bluff'. From MW, "1 to cause to believe what is untrue". If you are causing people to believe what is not true, that is a lie. Obvious to you means you're using intuition. How about you make a rational case by explaining how it's not so we can see where we differ? | |
| Jul 14, 2020 at 10:39 | comment | added | Sophie Swett | To me, it's obvious that "I raise to $50" is not a lie in this situation. It's a true statement, uttered by someone who believes that it's true, for the purpose of honestly communicating the truth of the statement, and without unduly leaving any information out. | |
| Jul 14, 2020 at 10:11 | comment | added | J D | @TannerSwett Absolutely it is a lie. Religious fundamentalists take a strong lie against games of chance that include deception and proscribe it. I think you are presuming all lies are immoral; it's not if the party being lied to willingly participates in the deception such as magic acts, acting, role play, fictional literature, and gambling. Playing poker is great practice at lying. | |
| Jul 13, 2020 at 19:25 | comment | added | Sophie Swett | I think defining a lie as "any communication with the intent to deceive" is certainly too broad. Suppose I'm playing poker, and the going bet is $20, and I have an awful hand, and I say, "I raise to $50." I have made a communication with the intent to deceive, but it's certainly not a lie, is it? | |
| Jul 9, 2020 at 14:57 | comment | added | J D | @tkruse Fair enough rejoinder. Well met, sir. | |
| Jul 8, 2020 at 20:41 | comment | added | tkruse | Being a most common definition does not imply it is the definition to be applied to this specific question for best results. The question not being phrased very specific, we can think about how the question could be improved by giving the definitions it currently lacks, and choosing the definitions that best match the asker's question instead of the most common definitions would seem reasonable to me. That is not necessarily contorting language, words can have multiple valid definitions legitimately. | |
| Jul 8, 2020 at 13:49 | comment | added | J D | @GeoffreyThomas As always, I value your contributions to model the language of contemporary philosophers. Your position was an inspiration for mine, though, the qualification 'per se' might be handy to accentuate the integral notion of context which you invoke to disambiguate intention and intension. | |
| Jul 8, 2020 at 13:27 | comment | added | J D | @tkruse Interesting or not, it's the overwhelmingly common definition. However, if your intent is to contort language to tie Gordian knots to amuse yourself and generate deepities, then I agree. I sit with the ordinary language philosophers and do not value obscurim per obscurious personally. As for fallacies, the implication only was that the intentional use of fallacies to commit deception is a reliable path to deception. | |
| Jul 7, 2020 at 7:55 | comment | added | tkruse | The question would become far less interesting if any deception was defined as a lie. Also fallacies are untrue reasonings, thus they can be lies, they include true statement, but they include also untrue statements (which would constitute the lie). But nice link to "lie by omission". | |
| Jul 6, 2020 at 15:07 | comment | added | Geoffrey Thomas♦ | +1 : nice, fresh angle. | |
| Jul 6, 2020 at 14:39 | history | answered | J D | CC BY-SA 4.0 |