| | This would typically be an article, but it seems non-members can't post articles, so instead I have posted it here. Comments are welcome.
"I cannot tell a lie." When this is said, it usually means the speaker is compelled for some reason to tell the truth. Generally, this statement is issued in respect of some odious action which was performed by the speaker, and who is now confessing to the deed.
Of course, it is not completely true. Anybody can lie. There is no man on this planet who is incapable of lying. Is this statement true? Surely it isn't, because it states something that is false. Should we then, upon hearing this statement said, debunk the speaker on his lying? Should we point out his misdeed? We can't tolerate liars at the best of times, more so when somebody is professing to be honest. That's exactly what he is trying to say with this statement, that he is compelled to tell the truth.
And herein lies the crux of the matter. He is telling us is that there is reason for him not to lie. Also, by stating it so firmly with 'cannot', he is conveying the gravity of the cause, and in doing so trying to reassure us of his honesty, to assuage any mistrust we might have of him. While you might argue that he should have said something like 'I find compelling reasons not to lie', his stating it firmly with 'cannot' is a literary device not meant to be taken literally. It is not a statement of fact about his capacity for lying.
The meaning therefore is not explicit. We should have seen this from the context, that it wasn't meant in the literal sense. This phenomenon is prevalent in spoken and written language, where often the literal meaning is not the right one. Recognising this is part of mastering the language in question.
This is not primarily what I wanted to address, but it is important nonetheless. I will proceed now with the story of a madman, living in a mental asylum, who was eligible for release. He had to undergo a lie-detector test, to be released if he passed. One of the questions was 'Are you Napoleon?'. He wasn't Napoleon. His answer was 'No', but the machine showed he was lying.
In what sense was he lying? He wasn't really lying, he was not Napoleon. What he said was true, so how could he have lied? In actuality he believed beyond all measure of doubt that he was indeed Napoleon. He had the sense to say that he wasn't Napoleon, and we might presume he knew he would only be released if he said he wasn't. However, he spoke against his own belief, against his belief of the truth. He lied.
This nicely illustrates the ambiguity of truth. On the one hand there is what is actually true, and on the other hand there is what the individual believes to be true. In judging whether a speaker is dishonest, we must first ascertain what they believe to be true.
It is said that an honest man is one who tells the truth. We can now see this is potentially ambiguous, and needs clarification. Anybody can have misconceptions of the truth. Therefore, I prefer this definition: "An honest man is one who says what he believes to be true, and tells when he knows not what the truth is."
When judging the truth-teller from the liar, let's try to distinguish those cases where the speaker is dishonest from those cases where the speaker is misguided. We are only human; any one of us can be misguided at times.
|
|
