Topics Language

Question My experience with philosophy (including reading this site) has given me the impression that every utterance (or at least nearly every utterance) can be interpreted in such a way that gives it plausibility. This holds for ethically trivial utterances like "I don't believe that 2+2=4", which I can defend with an explanation like "well, 2+2=4 is not an absolute truth because a) there is skepticism in the spirit of (perhaps and among others) Descartes and b) no base was clarified in which this equation takes place" as well as ethically significant utterances like "I did not have sex with that woman" which I can defend with an explanation borrowing ideas I saw in some responses to the question about whether cybersex was sex, for instance, "Well, we used a condom which prevented literal contact which I believe is a necessary condition for something to count as sex". Now my questions are: a) is there some interpretation of every utterance such that it is plausible and b) if so, can I, in responding to questions, avoid "lying" by choosing my answer merely on the standard of what will further my own interests, knowing that there is some interpretation of my response (without perhaps knowing at the moment what precisely that interpretation is - that part is important!) that will make it seem plausible/true? Relatedly, IF any utterance can be defended plausibly as true or not, can I comfortably (in a moral sense) dispense with "truth" as a standard in choosing a response? Thanks

Accepted:
April 20, 2011

Comments

Oh dear, oh dear, I hope not! You are right that many statements can be interpreted in ways that would make them plausable, but communication rests on agreed upon meanings and nuances. So, it became apparent during the Clinton years that his claim not to have had sex with Monica was outright deception, even though he might have had a definition of "sex" that did not include (what most people would describe as) the types of sexual acts they performed. The key lies in wrongful deception, whether or not you say something that is literally true. Imagine you are late for an appointment because you lingered too long over lunch. The person you were to meet says: "You're late." You respond: "The traffic today is horrible." Let's say it is true the traffic is horrible, so this is not (in some narrow sense a lie, but it is lying insofar as you are engaged in deception by implying that the reason you are late is due to traffic. You might like to read Thomas Carson's Lying and Deception; theory and practice (Oxford University Press, 2010) for a sweeping, compelling treatment of the issues. I am not sure one can plausably deny 2+2 = 4 without lots and lots of alterations in meaning.... perhaps you are referring to someone (Skippy) with a t-shirt on with the phrase "2+2" on it and you are claiming that the person, Skippy, is not 4. But in ordinary, non-Monty Python seetings 2+2=4 is equivalent to the identity statement 1+1+1+1 is 1+1+1+1

and denial of such an identity is very difficult to believe, let alone understand. Good wishes, CT