[Sanada]

Question/Poll.

Is it best to honest, even if the honesty may hurt.

E.G....I always say that to love and wish no harm is a good thing, 'not' to hate. We all feel anger though. Hate seem's to come from anger, or envy.

So being honest may come from a darker place inside us.
Or maybe a lighter place.

So, what do we do, be honest in light or darkness.

Is it best to honest even though our opinion may be seen as being too honest.
'I' will not lie. So what do I do, be honest.

What do you do..?

Be honest for the comfort of another, or be honest to help another.

[Open Eyes]

"To thyself be true"
Open Eyes

[Sanada]

Originally Posted by Open Eyes

"To thyself be true"
Open Eyes

nice one open eyes. Follow my instinct. As long as I don't hurt anyone (which I don't), I can't go wrong..
Thank you.

[SoupDragon]

I am just learning to be able to recognise my feelings - well recognise that I have them, not so good at naming them just now.

I am also learning that it is OK to have feelings and to express them, but not to "act them out".

So all feelings are valid, but with the understanding that we own them, they are our responsibility and not the others persons.

So from this I am learning to be able to say to someone, I am feeling angry, hurt etc...without losing it and behaving in a uncontrolled way.

I do still think there are times, when honesty is not the best thing - particuarly if the other person may feel a negative emotion in response to your honesty and not be so good themselves at not acting it out - but if you do still then decide to be honest despite that risk, then it's also good to be able to run fast.

[Sanada]

Nice one soup dragon..

I totally agree with that. I do use tactical words when placed in a particular situation. Tact is always a handy thing to be good at.
It is weird though when I think about the truth in how we are allowed to feel, and how we behave.
Like you I am still learning how to deal with new emotions. Some friend said to me 'its OK to feel anything, its how we deal with the emotions that's important'. I kinda am still working that one out, but I see its relevance.
Thanks for the reply.

(lol, I liked the being fast bit).

[sunrise]

Originally Posted by Sanada

E.G....I always say that to love and wish no harm is a good thing, 'not' to hate. We all feel anger though. Hate seem's to come from anger, or envy.

So are you asking if it is OK to tell someone you hate them? I actually don't think I would do it even if it is true. Recently, I've had more interaction with my brother than usual (he has been living far away so I don't see him often). I have become more aware of my feelings, in general, from having worked on recognizing my feelings in therapy. I've become aware I just don't like my brother. I don't like who he is and realize he rubs me the wrong way a lot of the time, just by being who he is. I don't think I will tell him I don't like him. I will just try to minimize our interactions and not initiate contact. If I need to be around him, I will give him opportunity to surprise me and be different, i.e. I won't shut the door. It's not like I can tell him hey when you do such and such, it bugs me, could you stop that? Because it's a more global problem than that. It's who he is, not just something here or there that he does. It kind of feels good to know this is how I feel about him. It allows me to set better boundaries for our interactions. I don't need to tell him I don't like him, though. But I also won't lie to him and say I like you, you're wonderful, etc.

That's my approach, anyway!

Hello, Sanada. As you say, a bit of tact often is useful. There are times, however, when only the truth will due.

[elliemay]

Who says honesty is an absolute anyway? I think that's where people get into trouble with the notion of "brutal honesty".

All we can say for sure is that we know what is true for us, not other people. So, IMO the question is should we always speak our own truth?

I don't think so.

[(JD)]

The idea of "it is better to be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt" comes to mind.

I find few situations require my complete honesty...fewer still require my input at all... no once can force me to answer or give information, right?

Honesty works for legal issues, but even then you don't go offering unasked for information... or you claim the 5th, right?

If it's a life or death situation and it depends upon my being honest, then surely I will give honest input. Otherwise, I prefer to see it as speak up, be quiet, or share minimal truthful info so as to do no harm.

In the counseling situation a therapist can know the truth yet cannot share that with the patient without doing harm. The counselor can't be totally honest in many situations because the patient can't handle all of it at once in the state they are in. It isn't being untruthful, it's being considerate.

I doubt the person asking for honestly is really wanting it in the long run anyway... perhaps even just like you in this thread, what they want is someone to validate that their questioning is an acceptable way to find himself.

[Open Eyes]

Originally Posted by elliemay

Who says honesty is an absolute anyway? I think that's where people get into trouble with the notion of "brutal honesty".

All we can say for sure is that we know what is true for us, not other people. So, IMO the question is should we always speak our own truth?

I don't think so.

Well, to a point I agree, but many times I did not speak my own truth.
I don't know elliemay, I am paying for that now, in ways I never could have imagined.

All my life I hid my own truth to spare pain to others. But now I am riddled with all that pain that I unknowingly held in. I talked with my therapist today about it and he has heard my truth and he does understand how I felt the way I did and the reasons I did it. But he also see's how much damage it has caused to me, more than I ever realized.

He sees my stuggle of being misunderstood because I have not wanted to hurt others. And he also sees why I still do it, to spare others still. And he has seen the weakness of the others, and so he knows why I do it and he says I am very thoughtful and yet it has been very hard on me. And he admits that he doesnt know if he could have done the same.

I don't know, it is very hard. I really struggle with it every day. I continue to pay for something that was just never my fault. He explained the damage it has amounted to that I truely struggle with today. He described what the years of supression has done to me and how that final straw broke me and how I am fighting an extreme case of PTSD. And he knows how I still walk on eggshells while trying to find ways to delicatey recover without harming others.

There is my truth, and then the truth that others around me are able to accept. So, that means that I have to continue to hide my truth and find ways to do just that.

Open Eyes

Honestly, honesty. Brutal is preferred. It's been my experience that most people, when asking/saying some obscure question/comment that casts them in a negative light (i.e., "Am I too much of a push over?", "Could I have done that differently?", "I'm no good at this," etcetera and so forth), they are not seeking truth. They're asking for someone to denounce the things they've said about themselves and all the insecurities on which those statements were based, regardless of the accuracy of the initial statement. Essentially, they're wanting you to lie to them so they can feel better about themselves. Honestly, this whole dance is manipulative and counter-productive. Therefore, I prefer to remain honest on all counts. This serves two purposes:

One: These "affirmations of self-worth", otherwise known as lies, only temporarily relieve the insecure person of their anxieties. Eventually, those insecurities will resurface once the ego-stroking has subsided, and they'll go back to asking moronic questions. What people fail to remember is that anxiety serves a purpose. It compels change and growth. When one manipulates others into "reaffirming one's self worth", they are suppressing those anxieties momentarily and, therefore, avoiding change. It's sort of like taking drugs to relieve pent up emotions, albeit less extreme. Instead of coping with those emotions in a positive and productive way, they seek whatever comfort (drugs, lies, booze, cheap thrill, sex) in an attempt to bury those emotions so they don't have to face them. But when I tell them the truth, those anxieties are amplified and they're forced to face them, which, hopefully, encourages growth. And they may continue to seek a good ego-stroking by means of manipulation in an attempt to rid themselves of the horrors they felt when they made the mistake of bothering me, but it'd be a futile effort because they know what I said was true. This will inevitably lead them and most others to believe I'm an a**hole. And that wouldn't be far from the truth...

Two: They stop asking me stupid questions.

[lizardlady]

Originally Posted by Sanada

Question/Poll.

Is it best to honest, even if the honesty may hurt.

E.G....I always say that to love and wish no harm is a good thing, 'not' to hate. We all feel anger though. Hate seem's to come from anger, or envy.

So being honest may come from a darker place inside us.
Or maybe a lighter place.

So, what do we do, be honest in light or darkness.

Is it best to honest even though our opinion may be seen as being too honest.
'I' will not lie. So what do I do, be honest.

What do you do..?

Be honest for the comfort of another, or be honest to help another.

Sanada, personally I can't give you a yes or no answer. Too many shades of grey for me.

I guess it depends on what subject one is talking about,and the circumstances.Sometimes truth serves the good.....at times,the aftermath is foreseeable as being dark,and destructive.Depends on motivation and consequence.

[Open Eyes]

Well that can be true Michael, some people do ask to be soothed by lies. And there are those who are good at lieing to sooth others in order to either gain social standing, or something they need for themselves. And there are people who's sole purpose is to disable another person into self doubt and a sense of worthlessness, hense Bullies and other Abusers.

However if you are someone that speaks the truth, you may be one who is kept away from a group of individuals that only wish to play around the truth and play constant games of subtle deception amongst themselves. And the truth teller is only approached when the subtle games reveal something that truely has to be addressed. The truth teller can be used to call out something that is troublesome to the players in the group, something is called out and addressed by the truth teller and that truth teller is then pushed aside and the games continue.

Unfortunately we live in a world where there are all kinds of lies that are practiced and supported everywhere. It can even seem as though the only gain is in learning how to lie and deceive the best one can so that gains can not only be made but sustained.

So when someone says that " they are no good at this," "Am I too much of a push over", "Could I have done that differently", they are not necessarily asking to be lied to, they actually want to know the truth. And when they get an answer that says "yes", the truth is that your not a bad person, you never learned how to deal with the various aspects of the pitfalls of human nature, they become relieved at finally hearing the truth.

So the struggle begins at learning how to accept the truth and also how to deal with it in a stronger healthier manner. And some people can only deal with the truth a little at a time because they were only allowed to live in a life of lies and deception.
And there are many different ways a person can be caught in deception, some of those ways are self deception, but a self deception that one may not truely be aware of.

The one that is the perceived ***hole is the one who truely cannot see the honest struggle of others. This person who is so lacking of empathy can identify the weakness only as they may be a good deceiver or can quickly define deception out of watching and learning how it is dealt with and overcome. And the ***hole is one who just assumes that defining deception is so blatently obvious the person who asks the troubling questions is stupid and does not want to hear the truth.

IN REALITY:
In both cases, it may not be "FAIR" to define the true ***hole. Because there is a genuine lack in both. The only one that can truely answer the original question is one who knows the truth, and has enough "empathy" to see another person doesn't truely understand and will take the time to explain it on a level where that person can gain some "True insight that will give them the opportunity to not only accept the truth but to learn how to see it better and apply it to their own personal growth." If someone does not possess "empathy" it is not always their fault, that person just cannot truely understand the way to view certain questions.

Open Eyes

[Perna]

I don't think we should "worry" about the other person; that's their job and editing our truth because we're afraid we might offend the other is a slippery slope to me. Tact is always nice but a lot of things, like JD points out, are not my problem so speaking about them is not something I should do.

I find "hate" a difficult emotion because I don't think I hate anyone; you have to know someone well to hate them and yet hate, itself, shows a bias which means you can't really know a person well. I use words; strong, emotional words, incorrectly a lot of the time; I'm always "loving" something or "needing" something when what I actually feel is interest and desire.

Anger is not "bad" and does not go with hate for me, but with hurt. If I perceive someone as hurting me or taking something of mine from me I'm going to be angry and that's a good thing as it helps me understand what is going on with myself and/or the situation. If I'm angry at another, I have to discuss it with them if I can, to make sure my perception is "correct" for me, that I understand that the other person did, in fact, take something or hurt me. Then I have to decide what to do about it but that rarely has anything to do with the other person but with my own actions so I am less likely to be in that position again or can protect myself better, deploy my boundaries, if I do fine myself in a similar situation in the future.

[Open Eyes]

Perna Quote: I don't think we should "worry" about the other person; that's their job and editing our truth because we're afraid we might offend the other is a slippery slope to me. Tact is always nice but a lot of things, like JD points out, are not my problem so speaking about them is not something I should do.

Yes Perna, editing our truth because we are afraid we might offend the other person is a slippery slope. How much should we protect ourselves at the expense of others can be a challenge.

And saying "Their problem" not "Mine" can be used to help us remember that when someone is hurting us, yes, it is their issue or deficiency not ours.

But it also important to be able to see someone who has a definite question and simply may not know the answer. If you have an answer that you feel can help them
come to a better conclusion that they can use to truely assist themsleves in their struggle, I don't see any harm in reaching out.

To me the injustice takes place when someone asks a question and really struggles, others have a possible viable answer and "could" reach out. But they dont, they just walk away and simply say "Not my Problem".

And as I know JD, she is one that will try to reach out the best she can. The crime is not with the one who tries to stop and reach out, in the best way that person knows how to reach out. The "Crime" is that the others that chose not to reach out, stop and critisize the one person that at least tried to do so.

It is often a slippery slope Perna. And that is because as soon as someone at least tries to stop and listen and help, that person then becomes available to critisizm.
There can be different answers to one simple question. And often it is only when one possible answer is presented, that suddenly that one possible answer becomes the only catalist that enables various answers to be presented. It was all started by someone who was stuggling with a simple question, NO ONE WANTED TO TAKE THE TIME TO ANSWER. No one cared enough until one person did, and that person was needlessly attacked.

The best case scenario would be that many answers are presented to a question, and that many people have a true desire to actually come forward. Instead of coming forward to condem one that had the courage to stop and try to answer the question, the best case scenario is to just simply add other options and insight.

Open Eyes

[alibro32]

Originally Posted by elliemay

Who says honesty is an absolute anyway? I think that's where people get into trouble with the notion of "brutal honesty".

All we can say for sure is that we know what is true for us, not other people. So, IMO the question is should we always speak our own truth?

I don't think so.

Especially if your feelings change. You may feel one way at one point in time and then for whatever reason shift in how you feel.

[yellowted]

I always work to the rule of if you can't say something nice , don't say anything at all, so if the truth will hurt do not say anything, opt out, in these situations i usually look blankly and reply with "pass, next question please" this usually makes the asker smile and change the subject!

for many years i had to hide the truth to protect others who were not strong enough to accept it, eventually i told this truth and was accused of lying!
the person this truth was about then proceeded to lie about it and was believed!

this has left me with a strong hate of lies and big mistrust of anyone who lies to me. i would rather hear the truth or nothing at all, i respect when people opt out of answering a question i pose as i know their views are different to mine and opting out is shielding me from hurt. people who are too honest are not respecting feelings, so i tend to steer clear of these people, those who lie and i find out i drop like a stone.

[Open Eyes]

Me too yellowted, it is hard when you know the truth and are denied it. I am sorry that happened to you. And I am a lot like you, when someone lies to me or anyone else I then have no respect for that person. Not if the truth really needs to be heard and respected.

And there are times when someone cannot truely handle the truth and it is important to be kind in that circumstance.

Open eyes,you highlighted the differences between criticism,and constructive criticism.On the one side ...one may object to a thing stating it is wrong...nothing more....perhaps the receiver is left shamed.On the other hand,making a point to say that something changed would benefit the person; and the outcome if approached differently would assist them,....is a criticism of support.If you find something with fault,add an alternative.Leave the focus on the action ...rather than the person.

[Open Eyes]

Yes, there is constructive critism and just plain un-necessary critism.

Rudyard Kipling in A Smuggler's Song says, "Them that ask no questions isn't told a lie." http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/a-smuggler-s-song/

"Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies" is attributed to Irish playwright Oliver Goldsmith.

Hamlet: “there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”

Subjective versus Objective:
Objective: existing independent of mind; belonging to the sensible world and being observable or verifiable especially by scientific methods; expressing or involving the use of facts; derived from sense perception.

Subjective: relating to or determined by the mind as the subject of experience; characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind; phenomenal; arising out of or identified by means of one’s awareness. http://www.lightouch.com/subjobj.htm

objectivism: Any theory saying of a given subject-matter that it contains objects existing independently of human beliefs or attitudes, or that there are similarly independent truths in the area, or that there are methods of studying the area and arriving at truths within it which are not arbitrary and do not depend on the approach adopted or convenience of application and so on.

subjectivism: Any theory treating a given subject matter as dependent on human beliefs and attitudes, whether those of an individual, a social group, or humanity generally.

Absolute [ˈæbsəˌluːt]n (sometimes not capital)1. (Philosophy) Philosophy a. the ultimate basis of reality
b. that which is totally unconditioned, unrestricted, pure, perfect, or complete

2. (Philosophy) (in the philosophy of Hegel) that towards which all things evolve dialectically

PERCEPTION IS "TRUTH"

The Indian spiritual leader, Mahatma Gandhi, said that, "A votary of truth [a person fervently devoted to truth] is often obliged to grope in the dark." Our challenge therefore lies in our blind spots, not in our vision. Unlike correcting a blind spot in the rear view of an automobile, which can be rectified simply by adding a different kind or a supplemental mirror, we cannot correct our personal blind spots so easily. To correct them, we must grow in our perception and in our acceptance of what is. "Perceive" means to "seize wholly," to "see all the way through." Perception, therefore, is the act of seeing in the mind, of understanding.

Our perceptions grow and change as we mature, but not everyone's perceptions mature at the same rate, which accounts for the widely differing degrees of consciousness with respect to cause-and-effect relationships. This disparity is neither good nor bad; it simply means that each of us have different gifts to give at different times in our lives as we see different truths.

Truth is absolute. Perceptions of truth are relative. Therefore, facts, which are perceptions of truth, are relative. That is why truth is singular and perceptions plural. Consider the following statement: The world functions perfectly; our perception of how the world functions is imperfect. We assume this statement to be true because it accepts Universal Laws of cause and effect as absolute Truth, but what are those laws? How do they work? We do not know because our perception is constantly changing as we increase the scope of our knowledge.

Trying to understand the Universal Laws is the essence of science. Yet even having worked as a scientist for 40 years or more, I would not know a "scientific truth" if I stepped on one, because my perception of how Universal Laws work is constantly changing. A "scientific fact" is therefore a fact only by consensus of the scientists, which means that a scientific fact or "truth" is only an approximation of what is. It represents our best understanding of reality at this moment and is constantly subject to change as we learn.

Perception is learning, because cause and effect are always connected. Gandhi had reached this conclusion when he said: "My aim is not to be consistent with my previous statements, but to be consistent with the truth." He was consistent in his changing perceptions of what "the truth" was at different stages in his life. He grew from truth to truth as his vision cleared and he could see greater and greater vistas. So he said that if one found an "inconsistency" between any two things he wrote, the person "would do well to choose the latter of the two on the same subject."

As I have grown, I am increasingly struck by the way my perception of what is continues to unfold, like a many-petaled flower. As each petal matures, I see the world anew, and thus perceive it differently. My reality is therefore different, and I am increasingly capable of responding to what is without making a value judgment, because, as Edward Bach, the British physician said, "The knowledge of Truth also gives to us the certainty that, however tragic some of the events of the world may appear to be, they form but a temporary stage in the evolution of man...."

The accepted definitions of truth are only modifications of the definitions of perception. Truth as a human understanding resides in everyone's heart, and it is there one must search for it. Although we must each be guided by truth as we see it, no one has a right to coerce others to act according to his or her own view of truth. In the end, our "detector of truth" is our inner voice. Thus, I find no magic in the perfection of hindsight; it only points out that I did not listen to my inner voice when it spoke the first time.

The truth of the human mind is relative and therefore but a perception of that which is True. If our perception of a truth were in fact the Truth, we would find no such thing as a half-truth. http://www.chrismaser.com/truth.htm

Absolutism will remain in the mind of the beholder. "Stupid" is subjective. Compassion and empathy help ameliorate the harshness of telling someone something they might not want to hear.

Well done.Ever impressive.

Originally Posted by Open Eyes

Well that can be true Michael, some people do ask to be soothed by lies. And there are those who are good at lieing to sooth others in order to either gain social standing, or something they need for themselves. And there are people who's sole purpose is to disable another person into self doubt and a sense of worthlessness, hense Bullies and other Abusers.

I will admit, my tactics do cross the line into abusive if the other person is deliberately and continually manipulative with their guilt-tripping and other such nonsense. There's a neighbour of mine who I will use as an example... She is an insufferable parasite. She, many a year ago, had cancer. They removed it. She's now completely fine. I know this because I happen to be an acquaintance of her doctor's. Yet, she walks with a cane she doesn't need and complains of back problems. She only uses the cane in view of public and only complains when she either needs something or if people start to become frustrated with her helplessness. Our neighbours, a kind and caring lot, are eager to lend a helping hand - including... moving all of her furniture when she got evicted from her old house; giving her money or buying her things; picking her up at two in the morning when the doughnut on her car blew, and then towing her car for her, etc. Why she was out at two in the morning on a doughnut is beyond me...

I am hated by most of my community because I have no sympathy for this woman and no patience to pretend otherwise.

However if you are someone that speaks the truth, you may be one who is kept away from a group of individuals that only wish to play around the truth and play constant games of subtle deception amongst themselves. And the truth teller is only approached when the subtle games reveal something that truely has to be addressed. The truth teller can be used to call out something that is troublesome to the players in the group, something is called out and addressed by the truth teller and that truth teller is then pushed aside and the games continue.

As I prefer it.

Unfortunately we live in a world where there are all kinds of lies that are practiced and supported everywhere. It can even seem as though the only gain is in learning how to lie and deceive the best one can so that gains can not only be made but sustained.

Allow me to clarify... I do lie for my own gain. And sometimes for fun. And sometimes just because I can.

So when someone says that " they are no good at this," "Am I too much of a push over", "Could I have done that differently", they are not necessarily asking to be lied to, they actually want to know the truth. And when they get an answer that says "yes", the truth is that your not a bad person, you never learned how to deal with the various aspects of the pitfalls of human nature, they become relieved at finally hearing the truth.

It isn't difficult to determine who truly wants to be helped and who is just seeking comfort lies. For the former, I will tactfully approach the person in question. I explain to them what they're doing well, what areas need improvement, and how to go about improving those areas, among other things.

For the latter, however ... I once tried to approach such people tactfully. But it never really worked out... There was one person in particular who constantly b*tched and moaned about how depressed/isolated/lonely/anxious/fearful/insecure she was, usually indirectly. I initially attempted to offer advice on how to cope with these irrational fears and insecurities in a relatively courteous manner. She responded with excuse after excuse of how there was no possible way she could commit to any of those options, and she asked me why I couldn't just leave her alone. As a matter of fact, if I said anything other than lengthy and elaborate supportive lies, she would conclude that I was an a**hole. Eventually, she started to grate on my last nerve, so I told her to either make some attempt to change or stop complaining about it. She hasn't talked to me since.

The one that is the perceived ***hole is the one who truely cannot see the honest struggle of others. This person who is so lacking of empathy can identify the weakness only as they may be a good deceiver or can quickly define deception out of watching and learning how it is dealt with and overcome. And the ***hole is one who just assumes that defining deception is so blatently obvious the person who asks the troubling questions is stupid and does not want to hear the truth.

I see the struggles and even understand them on some level. I even understand that people just need someone to talk to or to vent on occasion. That doesn't mean I can empathize with them, however... But, regardless of the troubles, if this person is only looking for pity (much like the aforementioned examples and many lesser forms), then I'm an a**hole.

IN REALITY:
In both cases, it may not be "FAIR" to define the true ***hole. Because there is a genuine lack in both. The only one that can truely answer the original question is one who knows the truth, and has enough "empathy" to see another person doesn't truely understand and will take the time to explain it on a level where that person can gain some "True insight that will give them the opportunity to not only accept the truth but to learn how to see it better and apply it to their own personal growth." If someone does not possess "empathy" it is not always their fault, that person just cannot truely understand the way to view certain questions.

Open Eyes

There's one thing I know about truth in relation to the mind... We cannot know what it is, regardless of how empathetic we think we are. We can, however, surmise. And we do just this by observing behaviours, expressions, speech, and so forth, all which indicate a certain mentality. Some of us are better at this than others, and it has very little to do with true empathy. For example, psychopaths are exceptionally good at taking a step in the mind of someone else... better, in fact, than many well-learned psychologists. What we lack is the capacity to share their feelings, and thus don't really care.

To be so cocksure of our self-righteousness opinions reminds me of:

“The belief that there is only one truth, and that oneself is in possession of it, is the root of all evil in the world” ~Max Born

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. ~Albert Einstein