Lie or Truth?

Bridge In the Mist

Good day, good people.

For devotees of the English language: Paronomasia is a noun. It means a play on words.

In “Operation Downfall, a political thriller, the president and vice president lied to their detriment and were exposed by Mariah O’Leary, the president’s attorney, which caused their downfalls.

It is obvious during the debates by the Republican candidates in the U.S. there have definitely been statements made which were intentionally not true — for the purpose of pandering. It is also true, politicians have a reputation for not having a close relationship with the facts or reality. They are just engaged in paronomasia, or are they?

The definition of a lie is: A statement made to another knowing the statement is false in order to deceive. But if you provide inaccurate information you believe to be true and do not intend to deceive you have not lied. You only have supplied inaccurate information.

My observation is: a politician will say anything whether it is true or not, or do anything whether it is legal or not if they believe they will not get caught at the time they say or do it — and to get elected or re-elected, too. Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton come to mind immediately.

Retrieving accurate information is almost impossible, particularly if it comes from a government. The degree of difficulty reminds me of walking up Mount Everest backward.

The definition of truth: According to Webster’s New Third International Dictionary is: “sincerity in speech” and “genuineness in expressing feeling or belief.” The Oxford English Dictionary, OED, Volume XI defines truth as “To speak . . . truly or without deceit.”

I want to believe eyewitnesses to crimes believe they are telling the truth when they identify the wrong person as the perpetrator. If they are telling the truth, they believe what they are saying is true, but in fact they have only provided inaccurate-detrimental information. But then again, it is a Rashomon situation. Eye witness testimony is the most unreliable.

Unfortunately, there are thousands of innocent people in prison in the U.S. whom cannot prove their innocence because of fallible witnesses and because there is no DNA evidence available to prove their innocence. Additionally, witnesses commit perjury, including law enforcement officers, and finally, there is prejudicial judicial and prosecutorial illegal conduct.

According to the OED, truthiness is truthfulness, and in 1854 J.J. Gurney said in Braithwaite Mem., “Everyone who knows her is aware of her truthiness.”

Sometimes what you think you know is what you believe, but this does not make what you know or believe to be accurate information. This is called faith, a firm or unquestioning belief in something for which there is no proof — politics and religions are two good examples. For each is trying to sell you what they have in stock. What you hear or see is an illusion, it is what your opponent, or purveyor, wants you to hear or see. And if you buy what they are selling, you will be delusional.

What is your thought on hearing and seeing and then verifying by retrieving accurate information if it is important to you, if possible?

Contacting me with comments and constructive criticisms with honesty and pleasantness their constant companions will always be welcomed.