Honesty: Thoughts?

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

those who know—they’ll get it.

👍
The issue is grasping how language actually works. Once you realize what Certau meant by "Course," you see that honesty doesn't exist—not at least in the way people think is "natural."

Ethan Johnson16 said:👍
The issue is grasping how language actually works. Once you realize what Certau meant by "Course," you see that honesty doesn't exist—not at least in the way people think is "natural."

Precisely. I mean, just look at the quote in my signature; it’s originally Faulkner's. And then there’s that Nietzschean line from Twilight: "That for which we have words is something that has already died in our hearts. In the very act of speech, there is always a grain of contempt." I suspect he was also hinting at a certain disdain for others, because if someone truly understands what we are saying, opening one's soul becomes a futile exercise. We aren't actually being vulnerable; we are merely rationalizing things irrationally, even to ourselves. It follows logically from that first part of the quote—we simply cannot capture in words those fleeting moments where something rises, falls, blurs, or flashes within the soul. Any semblance of what we call "feeling"—it all escapes us.

Nicholas Alvarez said:Precisely. I mean, just look at the quote in my signature; it’s originally Faulkner's. And then there’s that Nietzschean line from Twilight: "That for which we have words is something that has already died in our hearts. In the very act of speech, there is always a grain of contempt." I suspect he was also hinting at a certain disdain for others, because if someone truly understands what we are saying, opening one's soul becomes a futile exercise. We aren't actually being vulnerable; we are merely rationalizing things irrationally, even to ourselves. It follows logically from that first part of the quote—we simply cannot capture in words those fleeting moments where something rises, falls, blurs, or flashes within the soul. Any semblance of what we call "feeling"—it all escapes us.

I’d probably just attribute that bolded sentence to whatever smart-aleck actually wrote it down. It feels a bit disconnected from how the real world works—I mean, if there’s always a seed of contempt in speech, where exactly would you find it in, say, a lover's confession?

I'm pretty sure Nietzsche looked down on plenty of people, but that shouldn't exactly be the blueprint for how we all live our lives.

Could you give me an actual example of what you're getting at here? 🙂

Could you clarify what you mean by the lover's speech? Are we talking about verbal or non-verbal communication? If it's verbal, Žižek offers such a charming take on the concept of love in his documentary and that "Reality of the Virtual" lecture. But if it's non-verbal... how can one even draw an analogy there?

I wrote: Can you give me an example of what you're actually talking about in your post?

Still waiting on that example, by the way...

And what about lovers? You know, when a guy or girl tells their partner... "I love you, you make me a better person, you bring out the absolute best in me... I just adore you..."

How much contempt is actually hiding inside those sentences ☕?

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?🙂

It sounds more like a witty comeback from a husband who was asked, "Honey, does my backside look too big in this dress?"

brisktiger56 said:I wrote: Can you give me an example of what you're actually talking about in your post?

Still waiting on that example, by the way...

And what about lovers? You know, when a guy or girl tells their partner... "I love you, you make me a better person, you bring out the absolute best in me... I just adore you..."

How much contempt is actually hiding inside those sentences ☕?

I suppose I should offer a brief apology to those of you who have been waiting around for me to resurface; it seems I haven’t exactly had the luxury of time to make a proper appearance on the forum lately.
You know, you don't actually express love through raw emotion; you do it through language. A feeling itself is boundless—it has no edges, no defined borders. A word, however, acts as a frame. It is the perimeter we use to attempt to capture something that is constantly spilling over the sides of the circle we try to draw around it.
Non-verbal communication isn't actually verbal. If you think about it, sex might be the only true way to express love because it involves the body—or, if you’re the type to believe in a soul, at least something tethered to the physical realm since it triggers those visceral, bodily reactions (don't ask me to explain the mechanics of that). It’s all expressed through the flesh, which belongs to the same category. And frankly, sex is a fundamentally irregular thing. I’m not entirely sure how else to put this, but have you ever truly had sex twice in exactly the same way?
In comparison to that, simply uttering the phrase "I love you" feels like a profound understatement of the actual emotion. You find yourself repeating the exact same words, yet the feeling behind them is constantly shifting, never static. It’s much like intimacy itself; you might follow a familiar rhythm, performing the same basic acts, but the experience is always fundamentally different—sometimes better, sometimes worse. It all fluctuates based on those microscopic shifts in devotion, or perhaps a sudden flicker of jealousy, or even just the subtle presence or absence of someone else entirely.

Nicholas Alvarez said:I suppose I should offer a brief apology to those of you who have been waiting around for me to resurface; it seems I haven’t exactly had the luxury of time to make a proper appearance on the forum lately.
You know, you don't actually express love through raw emotion; you do it through language. A feeling itself is boundless—it has no edges, no defined borders. A word, however, acts as a frame. It is the perimeter we use to attempt to capture something that is constantly spilling over the sides of the circle we try to draw around it.
Non-verbal communication isn't actually verbal. If you think about it, sex might be the only true way to express love because it involves the body—or, if you’re the type to believe in a soul, at least something tethered to the physical realm since it triggers those visceral, bodily reactions (don't ask me to explain the mechanics of that). It’s all expressed through the flesh, which belongs to the same category. And frankly, sex is a fundamentally irregular thing. I’m not entirely sure how else to put this, but have you ever truly had sex twice in exactly the same way?
In comparison to that, simply uttering the phrase "I love you" feels like a profound understatement of the actual emotion. You find yourself repeating the exact same words, yet the feeling behind them is constantly shifting, never static. It’s much like intimacy itself; you might follow a familiar rhythm, performing the same basic acts, but the experience is always fundamentally different—sometimes better, sometimes worse. It all fluctuates based on those microscopic shifts in devotion, or perhaps a sudden flicker of jealousy, or even just the subtle presence or absence of someone else entirely.

Look, speech is just one tool in the communication toolbox. Every medium has its limitations—spoken sentences definitely included—but... I can't quite wrap my head around the idea that they're somehow unworthy of expressing love. Someone who actually loves someone with their whole heart isn't going to deliver those words like a dry, lifeless forum post; it’s going to be wrapped up in tone, intensity, eye contact, touch, and then maybe a kiss...

All of that matters, obviously, and it doesn't diminish what the person is actually feeling. Honestly, I'm more curious about which specific part of that verbal exchange is supposed to contain that tiny speck of contempt that this guy Nietzsche keeps bringing up.

To be honest, speaking from my own experience, people don't actually crave raw, unfiltered opinions that refuse to suck up to the crowd or cling to whatever the majority consensus happens to be.
They much prefer something wrapped in layers of hypocrisy and watered-down compromises.
If you dare to point out to an idiot why they’re being an idiot—or just call them selfish—God forbid, you’re suddenly labeled as "unprofessional" or "rude."
Honesty and courage are really the only character traits I truly respect; everything else is just a collection of personality quirks used by the person possessing them for their own ends.
Take "kindness," for instance—it’s frequently just a convenient mask used to manufacture a certain image... the whole "oh, look at me, I'm such a victim" routine, or just a way to feed a massive ego. "Look how virtuous I am," they say.
That’s why those who are genuinely sincere always find themselves swimming against the current, getting spat on and criticized. Nobody actually wants to hear the truth. Everyone would love to be seen as an angel if it meant they could just be coddled and patted on the back.😁
I don't do participation trophies for fools.

brisktiger56 said:Look, speech is just one tool in the communication toolbox. Every medium has its limitations—spoken sentences definitely included—but... I can't quite wrap my head around the idea that they're somehow unworthy of expressing love. Someone who actually loves someone with their whole heart isn't going to deliver those words like a dry, lifeless forum post; it’s going to be wrapped up in tone, intensity, eye contact, touch, and then maybe a kiss...

All of that matters, obviously, and it doesn't diminish what the person is actually feeling. Honestly, I'm more curious about which specific part of that verbal exchange is supposed to contain that tiny speck of contempt that this guy Nietzsche keeps bringing up.

Fine. We aren't talking about the same thing. It's true, people say eyes are the windows to the soul, but we are discussing words, not glances. Verbally—for heaven's sake, verbally! You can just as easily toss a glance into the same category as sex. And on that point, we should be able to agree.
The question is: Is it actually possible to describe something as mercurial as emotion using nothing but words without letting a sliver (mind you, a very fine sliver) of contempt leak in, simply because you feel you haven't quite captured what you intended to say, or perhaps because your expression betrayed you? To return once more to the subject of sex 🤷—my girlfriend and I have sex, and afterward we cuddle and show affection, which is wonderful; it’s how we express love through physical connection. But then, I blurt out "I love you," and more often than not, those words feel utterly inadequate. There is something more profound at play, something expressed physically. Like this: 🙂only without the heart.
Consider another instance: when you tell someone you love them for the first time, and your plea receives a positive response, leaving you elated and under the impression that your beloved is equally happy (let's assume she's beaming). Is it because she looked up the definition of "I love you" in a dictionary to confirm it means expressing affection, or was it because she sensed that tiny grain of shyness in you, or saw how you stood there all stiff and awkward from sheer terror, which she found absolutely precious or whatever? Clearly, those words didn't mean much more to you than a simple declaration of love, because you acted like a complete amateur.
There is always something more significant than the words themselves. On that, we are in agreement.

Nicholas Alvarez said:Fine. We aren't talking about the same thing. It's true, people say eyes are the windows to the soul, but we are discussing words, not glances. Verbally—for heaven's sake, verbally! You can just as easily toss a glance into the same category as sex. And on that point, we should be able to agree.
The question is: Is it actually possible to describe something as mercurial as emotion using nothing but words without letting a sliver (mind you, a very fine sliver) of contempt leak in, simply because you feel you haven't quite captured what you intended to say, or perhaps because your expression betrayed you? To return once more to the subject of sex 🤷—my girlfriend and I have sex, and afterward we cuddle and show affection, which is wonderful; it’s how we express love through physical connection. But then, I blurt out "I love you," and more often than not, those words feel utterly inadequate. There is something more profound at play, something expressed physically. Like this: 🙂only without the heart.
Consider another instance: when you tell someone you love them for the first time, and your plea receives a positive response, leaving you elated and under the impression that your beloved is equally happy (let's assume she's beaming). Is it because she looked up the definition of "I love you" in a dictionary to confirm it means expressing affection, or was it because she sensed that tiny grain of shyness in you, or saw how you stood there all stiff and awkward from sheer terror, which she found absolutely precious or whatever? Clearly, those words didn't mean much more to you than a simple declaration of love, because you acted like a complete amateur.
There is always something more significant than the words themselves. On that, we are in agreement.

Actually, looking back at this now, writing at six in the morning 😲 makes me realize I'm not entirely sure what I was rambling about myself. When Nietzsche spoke of the act of speech, did he intend to encompass every component of that act—including non-verbal cues—or was he strictly referring to semantics in the narrowest sense?
My intention was the former. I was responding specifically to your question regarding romantic communication.
I find little solace other than Wittgenstein 1. and the collective power of every love poem written since the dawn of time.
Anyway, good night to the whole crew. ☕

People just don't have a stomach for honesty—you know, that raw, unfiltered kind of opinion that doesn't try to suck up to anyone or play nice with the crowd. Most folks would much rather swallow some wrapped-up, hypocritical nonsense designed to reach a comfortable compromise. You can't exactly walk up to a moron and explain exactly why they're being an idiot or an egoist, either. God forbid you show a little grit—suddenly, you're the uncultured one.

I get that—though I’m sure there will be plenty of people out there hunting for that raw, unfiltered "truth," only to turn around and despise anyone who uses a little diplomatic nuance to basically say nothing at all.

Nicholas Alvarez said:Fine. We aren't talking about the same thing. It's true, people say eyes are the windows to the soul, but we are discussing words, not glances. Verbally—for heaven's sake, verbally! You can just as easily toss a glance into the same category as sex. And on that point, we should be able to agree.
The question is: Is it actually possible to describe something as mercurial as emotion using nothing but words without letting a sliver (mind you, a very fine sliver) of contempt leak in, simply because you feel you haven't quite captured what you intended to say, or perhaps because your expression betrayed you? To return once more to the subject of sex 🤷—my girlfriend and I have sex, and afterward we cuddle and show affection, which is wonderful; it’s how we express love through physical connection. But then, I blurt out "I love you," and more often than not, those words feel utterly inadequate. There is something more profound at play, something expressed physically. Like this: 🙂only without the heart.
Consider another instance: when you tell someone you love them for the first time, and your plea receives a positive response, leaving you elated and under the impression that your beloved is equally happy (let's assume she's beaming). Is it because she looked up the definition of "I love you" in a dictionary to confirm it means expressing affection, or was it because she sensed that tiny grain of shyness in you, or saw how you stood there all stiff and awkward from sheer terror, which she found absolutely precious or whatever? Clearly, those words didn't mean much more to you than a simple declaration of love, because you acted like a complete amateur.
There is always something more significant than the words themselves. On that, we are in agreement.

Why are feelings such a chaotic mess? Seriously—why can they be so incredibly volatile? One minute you’re cruising along, feeling relatively level-headed, and the next, everything just shifts without any warning at all. It’s like being stuck in a constant state of emotional whiplash. Just... why?
If I actually manage to respect someone—which, let’s be honest, isn't exactly a frequent occurrence on my part—I guess I'll probably still be respecting them about five seconds later.
You can certainly use words to express contempt for someone—or just for how they act—but honestly, hating on language itself because it’s "imperfect" or whatever feels like a stretch. Everything has its limits, and verbal communication is no exception. And look, regarding the whole sex thing you're always dwelling on—I get that some people probably feel like words just don't cut it when it comes to expressing what they're feeling for their partner, but I really don't buy the idea that we should despise sex just because of that.

Here’s another one—think about that moment when you finally tell someone you love them for the first time. Your heart is basically doing backflips because they actually say it back. You walk away feeling like you've won the lottery, convinced that they’re just as happy as you are—let's assume she's absolutely beaming. But why? Is it because she looked up the definition of "I love you" in a dictionary and decided it was a valid sentiment? Or maybe it was because she caught that tiny, pathetic flicker of shyness in your eyes—or perhaps she just saw how you were standing there, all stiff and frozen with pure terror, looking like a deer in headlights. She probably thought it was just... incredibly sweet. Who knows. Either way, those words clearly meant more to you than just a simple declaration of affection—because, let’s be honest, you acted like a complete total wreck.
There’s always something more beneath the surface than just the words themselves—and honestly, on that point, we’re on the same page.

There’s just... more to everything than whatever we manage to wrap our heads around. There's something beyond the limits of our own imagination—something bigger than the sum of all our little theories and mental constructs. 😉Let's be real for a second—the most critical part of any relationship is ensuring that when both people say "I love you," they actually mean the exact same thing. It sounds obvious, right? But if one person thinks it's a profound, soul-binding commitment and the other just thinks it's a polite way to say "you're cool, let's grab tacos," then you've got a massive problem on your hands. If the definitions don't align... well, that's where things start to get messy. wordLook, even if it’s the best possible argument for the other side—and let's be honest, it probably is—we can't exactly go around hating the vocabulary itself. It's just words, right? But you have to feel a little bit of pity for the situation when a hundred different people use the exact same terms, yet they all seem to mean something slightly different. It's that classic semantic mess where "similar" definitely doesn't mean "identical."

There’s always this tiny, underlying grain of contempt baked right into the very act of speaking. It's just there—hidden in the subtext of almost every conversation.

Looking at that sentence above, I could honestly argue there’s a certain level of contempt for the actual words being used—mostly because they fail to be even remotely precise about what the guy actually means. Now, sure, I make mistakes like that all the time, but you’d think a philosopher could manage better than this. Was he talking about a disdain for language's inability to capture raw emotion, or was he talking about the way words can be used to project contempt onto someone else? Heaven knows. If he actually meant both, then he's definitely tripping over his own logic.

brisktiger56 said:I wrote: Can you give me an example of what you're actually talking about in your post?

Still waiting on that example, by the way...

And what about lovers? You know, when a guy or girl tells their partner... "I love you, you make me a better person, you bring out the absolute best in me... I just adore you..."

How much contempt is actually hiding inside those sentences ☕?

Fine. Imagine that exact same sentence used in different contexts:
1. You hold an opinion, someone counters it, and after a quick debate, you realize you're wrong and say it.

2. You walk through the door after a productive day feeling fulfilled and just say it.

3. Someone tells you something about yourself they struggle to accept, and you respond with it.

4. You just say it out of the blue while sitting at home, nothing even happening.

I see layers of subtext in every single one of these scenarios. Those meanings become even more obvious if you actually step into the shoes of the person receiving the message.

Ethan Johnson16 said:Fine. Imagine that exact same sentence used in different contexts:
1. You hold an opinion, someone counters it, and after a quick debate, you realize you're wrong and say it.

2. You walk through the door after a productive day feeling fulfilled and just say it.

3. Someone tells you something about yourself they struggle to accept, and you respond with it.

4. You just say it out of the blue while sitting at home, nothing even happening.

I see layers of subtext in every single one of these scenarios. Those meanings become even more obvious if you actually step into the shoes of the person receiving the message.

I’ve completely lost the thread here 😢—I can't tell which sentence we're actually talking about or what you're even trying to prove: is this pure contempt, some kind of dishonesty, or something else entirely?

Thanks for bearing with me.

brisktiger56 said:I’ve completely lost the thread here 😢—I can't tell which sentence we're actually talking about or what you're even trying to prove: is this pure contempt, some kind of dishonesty, or something else entirely?

Thanks for bearing with me.

this line. It’s all about context, isn't it? I'm trying to show how contempt, insincerity, selfishness, and greed—all those hallmarks of ego-driven discourse—crop up regardless of the setting. First off, there's always that unspoken demand for something in return. And second, there's this constant expectation that you owe something back. Both sides are inherently political. Or are they? 🤦
Ultimately, it all boils down to negotiation.

Ethan Johnson16 said:this line. It’s all about context, isn't it? I'm trying to show how contempt, insincerity, selfishness, and greed—all those hallmarks of ego-driven discourse—crop up regardless of the setting. First off, there's always that unspoken demand for something in return. And second, there's this constant expectation that you owe something back. Both sides are inherently political. Or are they? 🤦
Ultimately, it all boils down to negotiation.

🤷 In a sense, sure.

But saying "everything boils down to negotiation" is about as logical as claiming stones and people are the same thing just because they both consist of electrons spinning around a nucleus.

There are different kinds of negotiations... and they differ as much as night and day. Just because we use the same word for them shouldn't "blur" the reality of those specific differences. Abstract terms aren't meant to erase the nuances of individual cases; they exist simply to make communication possible. But within that communication, there’s no point in ignoring the distinguishing details of the actual situation.

In other words, while saying everything boils down to negotiation might be technically true in one way, it completely misses the point in another.

On topic—I also feel like "honesty" is a practically unreachable ideal. On the flip side, just because an ideal is unattainable doesn't mean it doesn't matter how honest someone actually is. For instance, are we dealing with someone who is as honest as humanly possible, or a calculated manipulator? Does the fact that neither is "perfectly honest" mean they are the same? I wouldn't say so.🤷 I disagree.

For me personally, it all comes down to the nature of the motivation. Exactly why is someone being dishonest to that specific degree? Depending on what drives them, I judge their level of honesty. Granted, this assumes I know their motivation—which is rare, even for myself, let alone for anyone else.😬 But just because I don't always know the motive doesn't mean I should change my view that the motivation is precisely what matters most... maybe not the *only* thing, but certainly the most important thing. (At least for me).

brisktiger56 said:"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! 😉

So, you're essentially saying we agree on the principle: that an individual can actually prove they genuinely want to hear, value, and tolerate your honest opinion?

Sam Flores71 said:It sounds more like a witty comeback from a husband who was asked, "Honey, does my backside look too big in this dress?"

Look, I’d much rather have an honest answer from someone I actually care about—someone I know has my best interests at heart—than deal with a bunch of trolls leaving nasty comments about my body.😂 He shouldn't be allowed to release something like that to the public.🙂

Henry Lopez10 said:To be honest, speaking from my own experience, people don't actually crave raw, unfiltered opinions that refuse to suck up to the crowd or cling to whatever the majority consensus happens to be.
They much prefer something wrapped in layers of hypocrisy and watered-down compromises.
If you dare to point out to an idiot why they’re being an idiot—or just call them selfish—God forbid, you’re suddenly labeled as "unprofessional" or "rude."
Honesty and courage are really the only character traits I truly respect; everything else is just a collection of personality quirks used by the person possessing them for their own ends.
Take "kindness," for instance—it’s frequently just a convenient mask used to manufacture a certain image... the whole "oh, look at me, I'm such a victim" routine, or just a way to feed a massive ego. "Look how virtuous I am," they say.
That’s why those who are genuinely sincere always find themselves swimming against the current, getting spat on and criticized. Nobody actually wants to hear the truth. Everyone would love to be seen as an angel if it meant they could just be coddled and patted on the back.😁
I don't do participation trophies for fools.

There’s an old saying back home that suggests getting kicked in the teeth is just a push forward. If someone insults you, nothing stops you from proving them wrong—reframing their insult as mere slander and using that friction as fuel for your own progress.
On the flip side, there’s also the wisdom that says: A wise man cannot be insulted, and a fool lacks the capacity to do it anyway.

It seems to me that, by nature, a speaker is always conscious of the image they are projecting. The only exceptions are moments of pure, unbridled rage.
Who is to say that the "honest" person isn't simply trying to be perceived as honest, or that the "brave" individual isn't just performing fearlessness? They all have one goal in mind: ensuring they are remembered as being honest or brave.🤷

Ethan Johnson16 said:this line. It’s all about context, isn't it? I'm trying to show how contempt, insincerity, selfishness, and greed—all those hallmarks of ego-driven discourse—crop up regardless of the setting. First off, there's always that unspoken demand for something in return. And second, there's this constant expectation that you owe something back. Both sides are inherently political. Or are they? 🤦
Ultimately, it all boils down to negotiation.

I feel for you if that's been your experience with relationships so far. But look, we aren't all cut from the same cloth. Some people, faced with some heavy-duty criticism, actually swallow their pride and realize they were dead wrong—so they approach the critic with genuine respect instead of disdain, saying things like, "Thanks, you helped me see how my own convictions were totally out of touch with reality..." If there is even one single instance where that happens without someone being a jerk or using sarcasm, then the whole claim that every spoken sentence contains a grain of contempt just... falls apart. Not everyone is playing politics, manipulating others, or acting like they're owed something just for showing up... lonegarder laid it out pretty well; I can't help but agree.

slymaker9: So, basically, you agree in principle, and an individual could prove to you that they truly want to hear, value, and handle your honest opinion?

Hegel's claim is only partially right. I'd say I agree maybe 50% of the time 😉. It isn't always as black and white as he makes it out to be. Personally, I think you should speak your mind if someone actually cares, but it’s on us to judge who we're talking to—sometimes it's smarter to just play dumb and dodge the question entirely. That's where the real wisdom lies. Hegel's statement feels a bit lacking in actual wisdom because he—miracle of miracles—simply realized that some people aren't worth being honest with. I mean... just think about all the people you've met in your life that you wouldn't want to be caught in the same elevator with, let alone share a booth at a diner! Imagine being brutally honest with them and saying, "Look, you're a total disaster, you've raised a family of losers, and if you don't fix your act, you're going to end up in a state penitentiary... actually, that's probably where you belong."

Sure, that kind of feedback could be "fertile ground" for someone to actually improve, but usually, for a million different reasons—mostly because it hits the ego and pride—the most predictable response to that kind of honesty is a physical reaction, like a fist meeting the honest person's nose. 😬

I honestly wonder what groundbreaking thing Hegel discovered with this sentence that we didn't already know, and where on earth did he get the idea that his claim applies to EVERY possible scenario.

When my wife asks me if these shoes go with that skirt, I'll tell her straight up: "No." She might prefer that they do, and she might not love my answer, but usually she just goes, "Fine, I know you're being honest, and I value that more than whether the shoes match the skirt perfectly," and tells me to keep being that way. Is that really a sign of contempt?

As Billy Joel once put it—if they lied to me, I’ll lie to you..
Now it's up to you to figure out the truth.. 🤷

lonegardener said:🤷 In a sense, sure.

But saying "everything boils down to negotiation" is about as logical as claiming stones and people are the same thing just because they both consist of electrons spinning around a nucleus.

There are different kinds of negotiations... and they differ as much as night and day. Just because we use the same word for them shouldn't "blur" the reality of those specific differences. Abstract terms aren't meant to erase the nuances of individual cases; they exist simply to make communication possible. But within that communication, there’s no point in ignoring the distinguishing details of the actual situation.

In other words, while saying everything boils down to negotiation might be technically true in one way, it completely misses the point in another.

On topic—I also feel like "honesty" is a practically unreachable ideal. On the flip side, just because an ideal is unattainable doesn't mean it doesn't matter how honest someone actually is. For instance, are we dealing with someone who is as honest as humanly possible, or a calculated manipulator? Does the fact that neither is "perfectly honest" mean they are the same? I wouldn't say so.🤷 I disagree.

For me personally, it all comes down to the nature of the motivation. Exactly why is someone being dishonest to that specific degree? Depending on what drives them, I judge their level of honesty. Granted, this assumes I know their motivation—which is rare, even for myself, let alone for anyone else.😬 But just because I don't always know the motive doesn't mean I should change my view that the motivation is precisely what matters most... maybe not the *only* thing, but certainly the most important thing. (At least for me).

Fine, I admit I overgeneralized and that things can be broken down into smaller layers. Still, chasing absolute honesty feels futile; it reminds me of Freud and his idea that we always speak the truth, just never the whole truth... whatever. But maybe being honest within the "language game" means embodying the rules—calling it "honesty within dishonesty" or "uncompromisingness within negotiation." A total linguistic paradox, isn't it?