On the subject of lying and attitudes to the truth, an interesting, obscene twist came to light in Ireland last week.
For those who haven't been following the story, Ireland has been rocked in recent times by continuing revelations concerning paedophile abuse by Catholic priests and brothers. Last week, a judicial commission finally published a report on what was going on in the archdiocese of Dublin. The report makes clear that diocesan authorities systematically worked to cover-up cases of abuse over decades, often simply transferring priestly abusers to new parishes and jobs, giving them continued access to children, not informing anyone of potential dangers, misleading the judicial authorities and police on the (sadly rare) occasions when questions were asked, etc. It's something I've been following closely, given the fact that I am Irish (although no longer living in Ireland) and was a member of a religious order (and based in the Dublin archdiocese) for many years in the 70s and 80s. I have been forced to come to terms with the realisation that I knew, and regarded myself as a friend of some men who have since been convicted of truly hideous, manipulative abuse (including one who chose suicide in preference to prosecution). Reading the report has been a profoundly depressing, at times sickening experience. But to get back to the point: A former archbishop, Desmond Connell, explained to the commission, the - for him - legitimate concept of "mental reservation." The following is taken from an Irish Times article: '...Cardinal Desmond Connell ... explained the concept to the commission as follows: “Well, the general teaching about mental reservation is that you are not permitted to tell a lie. On the other hand, you may be put in a position where you have to answer, and there may be circumstances in which you can use an ambiguous expression realising that the person who you are talking to will accept an untrue version of whatever it may be – permitting that to happen, not willing that it happened, that would be lying. It really is a matter of trying to deal with extraordinarily difficult matters that may arise in social relations where people may ask questions that you simply cannot answer. Everybody knows that this kind of thing is liable to happen. So mental reservation is, in a sense, a way of answering without lying.”' http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1126/breaking86.htm The article goes on to describe some of the horrifying results of such casuistical moral hair-splitting. I happen to know Connell somewhat, as he was Professor of Metaphysics at University College Dublin when I studied philosophy there - indeed, he was my tutor for a semester. He was/is, in my view, a very intelligent man, in possession of an excellent philosophical mind within the confines of the strigent, limited confines of the very traditional scholastic Thomistic philosophy which he espouses. He is a sincere, devout man, very other-worldly, who was completely happy in his peculiar academic ivory tower and was probably deeply upset when John Paul II appointed him archbishop of Dublin in 1988. To be fair to him, he was also the first archbishop of Dublin to begin to face up (however incompletely and reservedly) to the problem of clerical abuse of children. In the wake of the commission's report, the idea of "mental reservation" makes me sick to my stomach. Francis On 1 Dez., 05:03, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Lying is treated to a great deal of academic complexity. It would be > good if we had ways to know people are lying in Aristotle's classic > sense. In the end, I don't think we are much good at knowing when we > do it ourselves. I have tried, over a long period, to 'lack > credibility' to see if I could find out more about how people are > 'conned' by this and also to see if there is a way to teach that isn't > about persuading people to your own view but to create enquiring > minds. As this latter is one of the aims of education I accept, I am, > of course, breaching my own principle to some degree, but I do bring > this to the table for examination. > I agree with pretty much everything in this thread so far. I had a > morning like Lee's - the sacked dinner lady being almost a classic > example of how we are going wrong. Of course, we have a 'whistle- > blowers Act' which has turned out to be so much toilet paper. We have > a human rights Act and this is so perversely vague we only know what > it means after a bunch of dud lawyers and judges have had their fill > from the pork barrel. Now we have another toothless enquiry into the > Iraq invasion which is essentially telling us the previous, costly > ones were duds. Orn's long lists could be applied to almost any > politician. Chomsky indeed lights a few beacons. Relying on > subjective notions of truth is circular and bound to be because > individuals can lie and wider, collective issues are not addressed. > We know, like Rigsby, there is much wrong and worry about tinkering. > We know something of Alan's ontological liar, but also of Slip's > demagogue and demislave in politics (another thread). It may be that > art is the lie that tells us the truth, but 'art' is also a form of > commerce. The Great Masters, on taking an apprentice, would assure > the parents they could turn a camel into an artist. Much teaching, > even in universities is child minding. > I almost flip into the belief a bunch of alien lizards is running the > show. The metaphor isn't bad, but disappointingly ripping their faces > off does not provide empirical proof - though One can ponder the > 'satisfaction'! > I would guess the real truth in global warming lies somewhere in the > metaphor of Nero fiddling as Rome burns. The truth in history seems > to be that we cling more precariously to this rock than we will admit > and don't do as much as we could about the self-destruction built into > evolution. We could have knowledge built on an understanding of big > facts, yet we easily follow big myths to disgusting conclusion. Over > 20 years, my research methods classes have always reached a point > where they have to tell me that the truth is little other than a > suicide note at work (not in a manner too distant from Lee's dinner > lady). I have to agree. Away from class I may well have been at > academic-practitioner conferences, demonstrating with others just how > bent statistics are and how this is nothing new (a classic paper is > dated 1910). Statistics is a very old world meaning 'facts about the > State' and not related other than by 'magic' to the scientific, > arithmetic and mechanical stuff that tells us about atoms. We teach > about frequency distribution, ogives, means and so on, but really > teach the construction of spreadsheets and presentations - and > hopefully about accessing information and demonstrating that you can > find much said on almost any topic. Orn would be a great asset - pity > I diced his brain in an experiment in another thread! Chris would be > great on global warming, as would the putting forward of almost any of > our views to the scrutiny of how we hold them. > This latter point of putting forward views to scrutiny is where my > interests lie. The magic wand of statistical enquiry can help here, > but usually doesn't because it remains magic without proper > explanation and scrutiny itself. A classic dodge is repeated over and > over. This is about polling people who wouldn't really know what is > going on, in order to evade the real sample. We ask, for instance, a > representative sample of the country's population for their views on > police and police complaints. We ignore the real sample - here those > who actually have dealings with police and police complaints - and > don't ask people how they have come to their views. In the sample of > the whole population, people may have formed their views by watching > television police shows, both fictional and on the street. In short, > the hard work is not done and we don't really try to find out the > extent to which ideology (such as Orn refers to) and fictions form the > protocols of belief. > I tend to think there is 'truth in the mess' and that if we could get > to it we could change for the better. This simple statement evades > politics and this is why I think we need something that includes a > better politics. At this point, we stray a long way from the > pressures I know former students now working in ONS, businesses and > the public sector are under to produce convenient truth. They know > they are lying, but generally justify this in an acceptance of a dirty > world and the need to keep the wolf from the door. > > Imagining half a book of argument, I end up believing our professional > classes let us all down. We live in an ideological mess and need to > recognise both this and the dangers of a thrusting desire for a > simpler situation (whatever tends us towards listening to the current > Nazis). We have made truth too hard to establish, but have to avoid > living under a new regime of truth. We want (as an example) our cops > to be able to come down hard on scum and not get buried under red tape > and fear of complaints. Yet we also believe actions by officials and > businesses should be open to public scrutiny by anyone they let down. > But we don't want this scrutiny to drive our systems to inertia. I > believe we could use a technology of fair scrutiny to produce a > working simplexity. I hear no real public talk about this. I fear > that the subjective model of truth (of the virtuous person) leaves us > with cretins like Bush and Blair telling us they are virtuous and can > make their peace with god. > > On 30 Nov, 23:28, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I don't see how this is relevant to the topic. Bush made many > > rhetorical errors and is well know for it. I suppose someone less > > inclined to understanding what he meant by using context could claim > > he was lying. Almost all the quotes here I am unfamiliar with so I > > have no defense for them and wouldn't bother if I did. It's > > pointless. Regardless, Clinton has publicly admitted now that he was > > lying about the affair. I'll stretch the limits of his credibility > > and take him at his word on this one thing. 'Cause that's just the > > kinda guy I am. > > > -Don > > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 5:02 PM, ornamentalmind > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > As a service for those who stopped listening to US presidents after > > > Clinton, the following is presented for your illumination. > > > > 50. "I promise you I will listen to what has been said here, even > > > though I wasn't here." --at the President's Economic Forum in Waco, > > > Texas, Aug. 13, 2002 > > > > 49. "We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa > > > is a nation that suffers from incredible disease." --Gothenburg, > > > Sweden, June 14, 2001 > > > > 48. "You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a > > > literacy test." -Townsend, Tenn., Feb. 21, 2001 > > > > 47. "I am here to make an announcement that this Thursday, ticket > > > counters and airplanes will fly out of Ronald Reagan Airport." -- > > > Washington, D.C., Oct. 3, 2001 > > > > 46. "Tribal sovereignty means that; it's sovereign. I mean, you're a > > > -- you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign > > > entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government > > > and tribes is one between sovereign entities." --Washington, D.C., > > > Aug. 6, 2004 > > > > 45. "I couldn't imagine somebody like Osama bin Laden understanding > > > the joy of Hanukkah." --at a White House menorah lighting ceremony, > > > Washington, D.C., Dec. 10, 2001 > > > > 44. "You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq > > > to the war on terror." --interview with CBS News' Katie Couric, Sept. > > > 6, 2006 > > > > 43. "The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the > > > ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th." --Washington, > > > D.C., July 12, 2007 > > > > 42. "I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not > > > need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about > > > being president." --as quoted in Bob Woodward's Bush at War > > > > 41. "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." --discussing the > > > Iraq war with Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson in 2003, as > > > quoted by Robertson > > > > 40. 3. "I think I was unprepared for war." –on the biggest regret of > > > his presidency, ABC News interview, Dec. 1, 2008 > > > > 39. "I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones > > > supporting me." --talking to key Republicans about Iraq, as quoted by > > > Bob Woodward > > > > 38. "I hear there's rumors on the Internets that we're going to have a > > > draft." --presidential debate, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 8, 2004 > > > > 37. "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." -- > > > Greater Nashua, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, Jan. 27, 2000 > > > > 36. "Do you have blacks, too?" --to Brazilian President Fernando > > > Cardoso, Washington, D.C., Nov. 8, 2001 > > > > 35. "This foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating." --as quoted > > > by the New York Daily News, April 23, 2002 > > > > 34. "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." --on > > > "Good Morning America," Sept. 1, 2005, six days after repeated > > > warnings from experts about the scope of > > ... > > Erfahren Sie mehr » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
