Posted by gardenergirl on April 5, 2006, at 15:46:56
In reply to Re: Civility » Dinah, posted by Toph on April 5, 2006, at 11:03:25
> I guess what I'm pondering is that maybe there is a hierarchy of ideals. And if there is, truth, for me, would be the ultimate ideal. Civility, though a noble ideal, would have to be trumped by the truth where there were a conflict.
I'm not sure I agree, although I admit I'm not thinking through every possible truth to be told. But I think many truths can be told civilly. Telling them without apparent judgement would go a long way, as Dinah I think said earlier. Unless what you are trying to convey is your judgement about something. It's true I believe X about Y, and that is my judgement about it. It's a fact that I believe that, but it's not a universal fact. It's subjective. But not everyone may feel the same way. So is that really truth? Or is it a belief?
If someone asks, "Do I look fat in this?" a horrible question to be faced with, I might add...it may very well be true that the outfit is not flattering and does indeed emphasize the person's weight. Is the absolute truth the answer, "Yes, you look fat in that"? Or can it be expressed equally well by saying, "I think X style would be more flattering" or "That outfit does call my attention to your hips (or whatever)." I know that's a simple example. But are the latter messages diminished in any way by the way they are stated? Maybe this is a poor example, actually, because "fat" is a subjective term.
> It's disillusioning to me when someone is punished for telling the truth.
See, I don't quite feel that way, because I do think that the way you say something is as important as the content. And it may not come as easily. It can take a lot of extra effort sometimes, but I think unless you are stating a judgement, you can state truth in a civil manner. Heck, maybe you can even state things you judge to be true, that are more subjective in a civil way if you identify and own the judgement. But that's trickier here, probably, but IRL I think it goes a long way towards civility when discussing issues with someone who believes differently than you do.
>
> Truthfulness is a philosophy of life also.Yes, I agree. In many cases, maybe even most, I prefer direct truth versus indirect, vague, or even cryptic statements. But if we took that as they only operator in deciding what to express, we'd go around saying a lot of hurtful things as well, wouldn't we? Perhaps some feel that framing statements to meet the guidelines here make them more indirect, vague, or somehow changes their meaning. But I would ask what the person is really and truly trying to communicate. Is it the fact? Or is it their judgement about the fact that they want to express? There's a difference. I may feel everyone should be outraged at X statement by Y person. So I may say, "I am outraged by this" and go on to give the information. I may find I have to do the cognitive gymnastics to say this civilly. But maybe I just want to bring X statement by Y person out, to inform people about what was said. What is the truth I'm trying to convey with the message? Am I truly wishing to convey the information, regardless of how anyone else might judge the situation? Or am I trying to convey what I believe about it? What's my real message, that Y saying X is wrong or outrageous, or that Y said X? Which is the truth I want to express? In the former, I think there is more potential for truth and civility to conflict, because there is a judgement involved. In the latter, assuming that Y did indeed say X, it is a fact presented without judgement, a more objective truth, which I think reduces the conflict between truth and civility.
Okay, enough of my own cognitive gynmastics with this for now. These concepts are certainly not simple, not superficial, though, and it's no wonder that they can evoke strong feelings and opinions.
gg
poster:gardenergirl
thread:628449
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060317/msgs/629332.html