Honesty: Thoughts?

Hegel once noted: "The fool is the man who is asked for his honest opinion and gives it."

What are your thoughts on honesty in light of this observation?
Is being candid a recipe for disaster—something reserved strictly for children, fools, the mad, or the elderly?
Furthermore, are philosophers truly sincere in their writings, or is diplomacy and self-promotion just as prevalent in their work? In your view, who stands as a paragon of sincerity, and who is merely a diplomat?🙂

The second you start talking... you’re being dishonest!

those who know—they’ll get it.

Reading some quotes online from those statements, it feels like Hegel is more about being complex than actually being sincere... Sometimes those things just don't align. I honestly can't wrap my head around his philosophy. Either I’m just not enlightened enough to get him, or there isn't much actual substance worth grasping in the first place. I’ll admit I've never even picked up one of his books or studied him in an American ethics class, so take that with a grain of salt. Whether I'm onto something or just totally off base is up to you Hegel experts to decide...

slymaker9 said:Hegel once noted: "The fool is the man who is asked for his honest opinion and gives it."

What are your thoughts on honesty in light of this observation?
Is being candid a recipe for disaster—something reserved strictly for children, fools, the mad, or the elderly?
Furthermore, are philosophers truly sincere in their writings, or is diplomacy and self-promotion just as prevalent in their work? In your view, who stands as a paragon of sincerity, and who is merely a diplomat?🙂

I honestly feel like Hegel might have been overstating things just a little bit here... 🙂 though I suspect he was probably just venting about some bad experiences he'd had. When you look at what he said alongside how most people actually react when they're asked for their unfiltered thoughts—whether they're prompted or not—it kind of points to the idea that maybe it's safer just to keep your mouth shut.

That being said, honesty is really a matter of character, so for those folks who are genuinely built that way, they usually can't really help themselves even if they wanted to. (And honestly, they shouldn't try.)

When we dive into philosophy, though, I think we should be talking more about truthfulness rather than just being "honest," because those two things aren't quite the same thing. You can be completely sincere and truly believe something while being totally wrong about the facts. So, in my view, the real goal of philosophy isn't just sincerity; it's the pursuit of truth, deep insight, and reaching a genuine understanding of reality.

steelridge58 said:I honestly feel like Hegel might have been overstating things just a little bit here... 🙂 though I suspect he was probably just venting about some bad experiences he'd had. When you look at what he said alongside how most people actually react when they're asked for their unfiltered thoughts—whether they're prompted or not—it kind of points to the idea that maybe it's safer just to keep your mouth shut.

That being said, honesty is really a matter of character, so for those folks who are genuinely built that way, they usually can't really help themselves even if they wanted to. (And honestly, they shouldn't try.)

When we dive into philosophy, though, I think we should be talking more about truthfulness rather than just being "honest," because those two things aren't quite the same thing. You can be completely sincere and truly believe something while being totally wrong about the facts. So, in my view, the real goal of philosophy isn't just sincerity; it's the pursuit of truth, deep insight, and reaching a genuine understanding of reality.

Truth is always such a tricky issue, mostly because people don't exactly enjoy hearing it. It’s usually not that hard to see the truth about someone else, but seeing the truth about yourself... well, that's much harder. I suppose when people ask for our honest opinion on a matter, they aren't just looking for an opinion; they are often searching for a truth about themselves that's buried under layers of ego and emotion and things like that. To bluntly shove the truth in someone's face is what Hegel would call the mark of a fool, probably because you rarely get a thank-you note for it—usually, you just get yelled at. Still, maybe it is a good quality. It feels like something altruistic people do. And honestly, equating an altruist with a fool seems pretty much in line with pure rationalism, where you just ignore the will, the intuition, the emotions, and all those other irrational parts of being human that define classic Hegelian idealism.

I honestly can't get behind the idea that figuring out someone else's truth is easy, mostly because there is such a massive gulf between thinking you know something and actually knowing it. I remember this incredibly wise woman once telling me that you should never even attempt to judge another person unless you’ve spent at least a full month walking in their shoes. It makes me think that, at the end of the day, we can only ever truly grasp our own reality—and even then, only as much as we manage to figure ourselves out over a lifetime of growing up. Understanding anyone else is really just the slow fruit of genuine connection, a process where mutual openness and vulnerability allow the truth to finally ripen.

That’s why I’d much rather focus on being honest about my own life before I start testifying about anyone else's; if we do that, maybe our own truth will eventually be recognized as a shared truth by others.

When Hegel talks about things, he isn't suggesting we just spout unsolicited "truths" for the sake of it, but rather providing an honest response when someone actually asks for a sincere opinion. Most of the time, when people go off on those unprompted tangents, they aren't sharing truth—they're just offering unasked-for commentary.

I suppose, if you think about it, nobody can ever truly grasp the absolute truth of any given situation. There is always some fragment left out of reach, so if someone tries to present a truth that is all-encompassing, then I guess everything becomes a lie to some degree. I was thinking more along the lines of specific, concrete things. For instance, a stubborn person will never actually see themselves as being stubborn; they’ll always have this internal justification for why they act that way—things like, "they just won't let me speak my mind," or "I'm just fighting for what's right while everyone else is wrong," or maybe, "I have to react because it's my duty," and so on. Similarly, a person who constantly plays the victim finds it much harder to realize they are doing that. They tend to think, "everything is so difficult for me, and nobody even notices," even when they are living a fairly standard life with pretty average problems. If you were to put such a person in a situation involving truly devastating hardships—stuff like cancer, losing a family member, crushing debt, predatory lenders, property seizure, or even prison—then, maybe, they would finally see that their previous life was actually quite alright. A person playing the victim wouldn't be able to tell themselves they are being dramatic; instead, they’d need someone who has actually lived through those kinds of horrors to point it out. Only then might they realize that the scale of their actual problems doesn't really match the amount of self-pity they feel regarding their circumstances.

So, there are people who lack certain life experiences or the insight needed to understand them, and then there is another person who possesses that experience and can explain the reality of the situation to the first person. Of course, that isn't an absolute truth, because in the case of the first person—say, the one acting as a victim—there might be unique circumstances the second person doesn't fully grasp. Perhaps they have a genetically hypersensitive nervous system, which makes even a normal daily routine feel like hell. But... well, I guess that is exactly what defines being a victim. I'm not claiming this is a moral flaw or a character defect that a person is responsible for; after all, you aren't responsible for your genetic makeup, only for how you choose to deal with it. I suppose the wisdom lies in the second person's ability to recognize the difference between themselves and the first person, allowing them to establish a more precise truth based on that distinction.

How can we determine who knows themselves well, who understands others, and who can accurately judge the gap between themselves and someone else well enough to offer them the truth? That's the question, anyway. Maybe you know the answer, though I suspect it isn't just about "walking in someone else's shoes." It's also about "being someone else," which isn't quite the same thing—in fact, I think it might be impossible. At some point, I will perceive a situation one way, and you will perceive it another, even if we face the exact same circumstances, simply because we aren't the same people. Our truths will always differ slightly. Perhaps honesty is just the attempt to get as close to the truth as humanly possible.

steelridge58 said:I honestly feel like Hegel might have been overstating things just a little bit here... 🙂 though I suspect he was probably just venting about some bad experiences he'd had. When you look at what he said alongside how most people actually react when they're asked for their unfiltered thoughts—whether they're prompted or not—it kind of points to the idea that maybe it's safer just to keep your mouth shut.

That being said, honesty is really a matter of character, so for those folks who are genuinely built that way, they usually can't really help themselves even if they wanted to. (And honestly, they shouldn't try.)

When we dive into philosophy, though, I think we should be talking more about truthfulness rather than just being "honest," because those two things aren't quite the same thing. You can be completely sincere and truly believe something while being totally wrong about the facts. So, in my view, the real goal of philosophy isn't just sincerity; it's the pursuit of truth, deep insight, and reaching a genuine understanding of reality.

In my view, an honest opinion doesn't necessarily have to be the truth. It is simply one person's conclusion based on the specific premises available to them, which means it will always be colored by subjectivity. To be truly honest would mean stating exactly what is in one's mind—without tailoring the message to suit the listener, without worrying about potential negative consequences, and without the desire to curate a positive image through communication. True honesty would be conveying information exactly as it exists in our thoughts, making zero modifications to the content, leaving only the necessary adjustments required for spoken language.

Edward Flores4 said:The second you start talking... you’re being dishonest!

those who know—they’ll get it.

I have to admit, I'm inclined to agree with that sentiment.

dustyskipper3 said:I suppose, if you think about it, nobody can ever truly grasp the absolute truth of any given situation. There is always some fragment left out of reach, so if someone tries to present a truth that is all-encompassing, then I guess everything becomes a lie to some degree. I was thinking more along the lines of specific, concrete things. For instance, a stubborn person will never actually see themselves as being stubborn; they’ll always have this internal justification for why they act that way—things like, "they just won't let me speak my mind," or "I'm just fighting for what's right while everyone else is wrong," or maybe, "I have to react because it's my duty," and so on. Similarly, a person who constantly plays the victim finds it much harder to realize they are doing that. They tend to think, "everything is so difficult for me, and nobody even notices," even when they are living a fairly standard life with pretty average problems. If you were to put such a person in a situation involving truly devastating hardships—stuff like cancer, losing a family member, crushing debt, predatory lenders, property seizure, or even prison—then, maybe, they would finally see that their previous life was actually quite alright. A person playing the victim wouldn't be able to tell themselves they are being dramatic; instead, they’d need someone who has actually lived through those kinds of horrors to point it out. Only then might they realize that the scale of their actual problems doesn't really match the amount of self-pity they feel regarding their circumstances.

So, there are people who lack certain life experiences or the insight needed to understand them, and then there is another person who possesses that experience and can explain the reality of the situation to the first person. Of course, that isn't an absolute truth, because in the case of the first person—say, the one acting as a victim—there might be unique circumstances the second person doesn't fully grasp. Perhaps they have a genetically hypersensitive nervous system, which makes even a normal daily routine feel like hell. But... well, I guess that is exactly what defines being a victim. I'm not claiming this is a moral flaw or a character defect that a person is responsible for; after all, you aren't responsible for your genetic makeup, only for how you choose to deal with it. I suppose the wisdom lies in the second person's ability to recognize the difference between themselves and the first person, allowing them to establish a more precise truth based on that distinction.

How can we determine who knows themselves well, who understands others, and who can accurately judge the gap between themselves and someone else well enough to offer them the truth? That's the question, anyway. Maybe you know the answer, though I suspect it isn't just about "walking in someone else's shoes." It's also about "being someone else," which isn't quite the same thing—in fact, I think it might be impossible. At some point, I will perceive a situation one way, and you will perceive it another, even if we face the exact same circumstances, simply because we aren't the same people. Our truths will always differ slightly. Perhaps honesty is just the attempt to get as close to the truth as humanly possible.

My view is that ultimate truth is known only by God; all human truths are merely partial fragments, like shards from a broken mirror.🤷

Does being "high-strung" just mean being a crybaby? I only ever heard that term used for small children in New York when they were being fussy or tearful. Is it really used to describe adults too?
@ everyone
Essentially, I wanted to discuss how many people who authored philosophical works actually used them as instruments to craft a specific public image—shaping how they wanted the world to perceive them.

For example, do people believe that Rousse genuinely thought humans were naturally good and were simply corrupted by culture and civilization?
Do people believe that Aristotle was recording his sincere thoughts in his Nicomachean Ethics?
Was Machiavelli actually being honest in The Prince?

slymaker9 said:In my view, an honest opinion doesn't necessarily have to be the truth. It is simply one person's conclusion based on the specific premises available to them, which means it will always be colored by subjectivity. To be truly honest would mean stating exactly what is in one's mind—without tailoring the message to suit the listener, without worrying about potential negative consequences, and without the desire to curate a positive image through communication. True honesty would be conveying information exactly as it exists in our thoughts, making zero modifications to the content, leaving only the necessary adjustments required for spoken language.

I have to admit, I'm inclined to agree with that sentiment.

My view is that ultimate truth is known only by God; all human truths are merely partial fragments, like shards from a broken mirror.🤷

Does being "high-strung" just mean being a crybaby? I only ever heard that term used for small children in New York when they were being fussy or tearful. Is it really used to describe adults too?
@ everyone
Essentially, I wanted to discuss how many people who authored philosophical works actually used them as instruments to craft a specific public image—shaping how they wanted the world to perceive them.

For example, do people believe that Rousse genuinely thought humans were naturally good and were simply corrupted by culture and civilization?
Do people believe that Aristotle was recording his sincere thoughts in his Nicomachean Ethics?
Was Machiavelli actually being honest in The Prince?

Hmm, I think I’ll try to borrow—well, paraphrase—something a friend of mine once told me:

You can't recognize a circle unless you're looking at it through the lens of a circle itself, because truth can only ever be recognized by truth.

What I mean is, when we sit down with someone's philosophical writings, all by ourselves, we can only sense how truthful they really are based on our own capacity to perceive that truth.

I personally don't buy the idea that these writers are just trying to build a persona for themselves (honestly, that would totally fly in the face of what philosophy is actually about...) and if they were, I'm pretty sure we'd see right through it.

slymaker9 said:Hegel once noted: "The fool is the man who is asked for his honest opinion and gives it."

What are your thoughts on honesty in light of this observation?
Is being candid a recipe for disaster—something reserved strictly for children, fools, the mad, or the elderly?
Furthermore, are philosophers truly sincere in their writings, or is diplomacy and self-promotion just as prevalent in their work? In your view, who stands as a paragon of sincerity, and who is merely a diplomat?🙂

Personally, I feel that dishonesty is one of the core things corrupting our world...

Brenda Cooper3 said:Personally, I feel that dishonesty is one of the core things corrupting our world...

Man, I am right there with you on that one.

If you ask me, truth and being real with people are basically two sides of the same coin anyway.
It isn't just that living like that is an uphill battle—especially in the US today where everyone's playing a character—it's that there's actually a massive responsibility involved in just telling the truth and owning who you are.

slymaker9 said:Hegel once noted: "The fool is the man who is asked for his honest opinion and gives it."

What are your thoughts on honesty in light of this observation?
Is being candid a recipe for disaster—something reserved strictly for children, fools, the mad, or the elderly?
Furthermore, are philosophers truly sincere in their writings, or is diplomacy and self-promotion just as prevalent in their work? In your view, who stands as a paragon of sincerity, and who is merely a diplomat?🙂

If a person is already fully aware of their own foolishness, then being honest isn't a burden at all—in fact, it becomes their greatest strength... In that light, dishonesty is really just a clumsy attempt to hide one's own stupidity from others.

I think honesty and truth are two completely different things.
Can you actually be sincere while lying?
Is honesty just some subjective feeling where one person tells another what they *think* is true, or does it have an objective weight to it—something where the person listening can instantly tell if someone is being genuine and truly believes what they’re saying?

Truth might be a subjective concept, sure, but the drive for honesty—that raw desire to speak the truth as we perceive it—ought to be the defining quality of any serious philosopher.

After all, what’s the point of chasing truth, which is supposed to be the very bedrock of philosophy, if we’re just going to end up burying it when things get uncomfortable?

granitebadger2 said:Truth might be a subjective concept, sure, but the drive for honesty—that raw desire to speak the truth as we perceive it—ought to be the defining quality of any serious philosopher.

After all, what’s the point of chasing truth, which is supposed to be the very bedrock of philosophy, if we’re just going to end up burying it when things get uncomfortable?

Of course. But everything boils down to interests. If your goal is genuine insight or clear, transparent communication, then honesty is paramount. However, if your objective involves something else—something you can't achieve without deception or strategic omission—then honesty becomes a liability. Still, I fail to see how a philosopher gains anything from being dishonest within their own discipline. If they did, they wouldn't be a philosopher; they'd just be a fraud.

"There’s a certain kind of fool who actually gives people their honest opinion when asked."

So... being an honest person makes you a fool? I guess it’s just a matter of "casting pearls before swine," isn't it?

I can almost picture the whole scene that led Hegel to this conclusion—it feels like one of those classic moments where someone asks for his thoughts, he gives them straight up, and then... nothing. No respect, no real appreciation... maybe they even laughed in his face 😉, leaving him feeling pretty small and undervalued. It was probably a late realization for him—that only a fool bothers being sincere around people like that.

Personally, I’d be totally on board with his sentiment if he hadn't been quite so broad with his wording. Being honest doesn't automatically turn you into a fool— it really all comes down to the character of the person listening! 😉

Of course. But look, it all boils down to what you’re actually after. If your goal is genuine insight or just clear, straightforward communication, then honesty is absolutely paramount. If your objective is something else entirely—something you can't achieve without lying through your teeth or omitting the truth—then being honest probably isn't your best move. That said, I fail to see any practical benefit a philosopher could gain from being dishonest in their field. If they did, they wouldn't be a philosopher; they'd just be a fraud.

Or, as we say in the States, a total "bullshit artist." 😉
Generally speaking, I think being honest causes far fewer headaches than being deceptive, so a healthy dose of sincerity never hurts anyone.

Sometimes I don't even know what's going through my head... so being totally honest is basically impossible. And honestly? When I'm stuck for words but I've already started a sentence, I just let my thoughts drift into whatever logical sequence of words happens to pop out. That’s the truth. 😁

Sean Castillo said:Sometimes I don't even know what's going through my head... so being totally honest is basically impossible. And honestly? When I'm stuck for words but I've already started a sentence, I just let my thoughts drift into whatever logical sequence of words happens to pop out. That’s the truth. 😁

So you're some kind of "sophist" now, huh? 😁 You claim you'd actually say 😁

Sean Castillo said:Sometimes I don't even know what's going through my head... so being totally honest is basically impossible. And honestly? When I'm stuck for words but I've already started a sentence, I just let my thoughts drift into whatever logical sequence of words happens to pop out. That’s the truth. 😁

Honestly, that just means you're a regular human being—you’ve got both an introverted side and an extroverted side.

In my experience, the people who claim they always know exactly what they're saying are usually the ones with the real issues, because it means one half of their personality has been completely suppressed.