Should the truth be acerbic?

[amorphous_constellation]

I see two basic approaches or ways of conveying what we call the 'truth' - one way is acerbic, and perhaps the other way is gentle or kind. Perhaps the truth is also both, as perhaps the exoteric layer of the truth is kinder than the esoteric layer. Perhaps the truth is kinder to beginners, or to the general public laymen.

I think that even if the 'truth' is 'acerbic,' we should probably strive to make it kind. I don't think that truth/honesty has to be so raw even if it wants to be, as the ascerbic path seems like it has the potential to be discouraging. Perhaps the truth needn't melt away falsity without understanding and consideration

Still, if the truth is packaged with too much fluff, perhaps the seekers of it will be ill trained when it matters. I don't know

 

[Thief]

oh yeah.....like a double edged sword

 

[Valjean]

I don't understand the question.
Truth is truth. There's no 'should' to it.
Truth can be happy or sad, frightening or soothing, exciting, depressing, sad, disappointing, inspiring -- it can be anything.

 

[Yazata]

I see two basic approaches or ways of conveying what we call the 'truth' - one way is acerbic, and perhaps the other way is gentle or kind.

I think that it's just a simple fact of rhetoric that if we want to convince somebody else of something, we need to make them want to agree with us. That calls for empathy and understanding. We need to address their concerns and persuade them that our way of thinking addresses their concerns better than their own way.

If we come across as jerks, bullies and a**holes, that will simply harden the other person against us emotionally and destroy whatever chance we might have once had to persuade them. People can't just be insulted into submission.

 

[Jim]

I see two basic approaches or ways of conveying what we call the 'truth' - one way is acerbic, and perhaps the other way is gentle or kind. Perhaps the truth is also both, as perhaps the exoteric layer of the truth is kinder than the esoteric layer. Perhaps the truth is kinder to beginners, or to the general public laymen.

I think that even if the 'truth' is 'acerbic,' we should probably strive to make it kind. I don't think that truth/honesty has to be so raw even if it wants to be, as the ascerbic path seems like it has the potential to be discouraging. Perhaps the truth needn't melt away falsity without understanding and consideration

Still, if the truth is packaged with too much fluff, perhaps the seekers of it will be ill trained when it matters. I don't know

When people use insults and personal attacks, I don’t think it’s because they think that’s the best way to convey some knowledge or information to people who might need or want to know. When people use fluff, I don’t think it’s because they think that’s the best way to convey some knowledge or information to people who might need or want to know.

I think that all discussions would be more fruitful and beneficial for everyone without insults and personal attacks, but I don’t think that any amount of any kind of discussion is going to stop those from happening. What I think people can do if they want to is to have fruitful and beneficial discussions themselves, and help reduce and counteract the damage to other people and their discussions from insults and personal attacks.

 

[sun rise]

Truth to me is best conveyed with what we do not what we say.

 

[Jim]

I see two basic approaches or ways of conveying what we call the 'truth' - one way is acerbic, and perhaps the other way is gentle or kind. Perhaps the truth is also both, as perhaps the exoteric layer of the truth is kinder than the esoteric layer. Perhaps the truth is kinder to beginners, or to the general public laymen.

I think that even if the 'truth' is 'acerbic,' we should probably strive to make it kind. I don't think that truth/honesty has to be so raw even if it wants to be, as the ascerbic path seems like it has the potential to be discouraging. Perhaps the truth needn't melt away falsity without understanding and consideration

Still, if the truth is packaged with too much fluff, perhaps the seekers of it will be ill trained when it matters. I don't know

I want to add some context to what I said. My interests in discussions like this are about what are the best things that can happen in Internet discussions, and what can people in the discussions do to help those things happen. For example, a person might think of people having fun together, learning together, learning from each other. and encouraging and supporting each other in the good that each one is trying to do in their lives. Then maybe they would just practice those things with anyone else who is practicing them, and learn not to be confused and distracted by the insults, personal attacks and vandalism that happen sometimes.

 

[Heyo]

I see two basic approaches or ways of conveying what we call the 'truth' - one way is acerbic, and perhaps the other way is gentle or kind. Perhaps the truth is also both, as perhaps the exoteric layer of the truth is kinder than the esoteric layer. Perhaps the truth is kinder to beginners, or to the general public laymen.

I think that even if the 'truth' is 'acerbic,' we should probably strive to make it kind. I don't think that truth/honesty has to be so raw even if it wants to be, as the ascerbic path seems like it has the potential to be discouraging. Perhaps the truth needn't melt away falsity without understanding and consideration

Still, if the truth is packaged with too much fluff, perhaps the seekers of it will be ill trained when it matters. I don't know

The truth is only acerbic to those who don't like it.

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

I see two basic approaches or ways of conveying what we call the 'truth' - one way is acerbic, and perhaps the other way is gentle or kind. Perhaps the truth is also both, as perhaps the exoteric layer of the truth is kinder than the esoteric layer. Perhaps the truth is kinder to beginners, or to the general public laymen.

I think that even if the 'truth' is 'acerbic,' we should probably strive to make it kind. I don't think that truth/honesty has to be so raw even if it wants to be, as the ascerbic path seems like it has the potential to be discouraging. Perhaps the truth needn't melt away falsity without understanding and consideration

Still, if the truth is packaged with too much fluff, perhaps the seekers of it will be ill trained when it matters. I don't know

Religion or even science doesn't make it easy to distinguish which 'truth' you wish to display. Let me share an example if I may to illustrate this. Let say I really want to convince my friend that the sky is blue, when in his 'truth' the sky is actually a light gray. Now, we must state that 'truth' should be universal that the sky is in fact blue, because that is what everyone would classify it as and we have accepted it, but it just turns that your friend has decided to go a step further and readdress this slight tone difference should be acknowledged for it is truth. There are a few ways you could handle this situation. One is let your friend live believing differently than you and perhaps have them live in ignorance their whole lives, hoping that one day they would see the light of day 2. Act against their truth, giving them facts, science articles, and testimonials along with a possible ultimatum to believe how you and everyone else believes or you want nothing to do with them. or 3. Accept their beliefs as something they hold onto, having it in consideration for a possible truth. The first and the third most likely still result you being friends. the second gives the option of removing all further communication with you and your ideas.

In reality, we might not know exactly what truth is. Most of everything we think we know as truth is actually 99.9999% true. Our brains fill in the rest of the .00001% so we can move on with life and not deal with it. 2+2 doesn't always equal 4. In fact, mathematically, I think we could manipulate that equation to equal almost anything we would like to given the time and energy to. But for time sake we don't. My point is, unless we had the authority and power of God who created everything, we can't begin to profess truth to someone else. Their truth may be different than our truth but that doesn't mean it is wrong or right. In the end, however, truth is out there just like keys unlocking universal doors to absolute knowledge. The One to hold those keys is God or the Creator. If we pray to Him with sincereness and desire to know what is true or not, He will give it to you. Why? Probably cause he cares about you. Probably cause he created this playground of knowledge in the first place, to discover it. Once we receive truth, it becomes the sweetest of all things we could experience. Every person can have that experience, but not have it at the same time, in the same place. The journey is different for everyone.

 

[MNoBody]

are you meaning to say, that when people give someone "their truth" they should be nice about it and not be condescending ...?
that is expecting a bit much from people in general from what I have seen....

 

[Sunstone]

Facts exist independent of our feelings about them. Truths are the statements we make about facts. So long as our truth-statements accurately describe the facts they refer to, I have little problem with how they are phrased -- although if one has a choice, perhaps it is most often (but not always) best to phrase them kindly. However, more important than phrasing truths kindly is phrasing them accurately.

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

are you meaning to say, that when people give someone "their truth" they should be nice about it and not be condescending ...?
that is expecting a bit much from people in general from what I have seen....

Exactly! There is no way of being certain that their truth or even your truth is inherently wrong or right, unless God were to directly tell you otherwise. For the most part we are given intuition or a spirit that tries to communicate God's will to what is or isn't true. This is most felt through sincere prayer or meditation. Some of us find it easier to go the third route and just hold on to what their friends believe as tokens of their friendship and understanding. They accept them for who they are more than just what they believe, which I believe is the best way to communicate God's beliefs as that is what He would do in that situation. Find and hold to similarities before discussing the differences.

 

[ChristineM]

I see two basic approaches or ways of conveying what we call the 'truth' - one way is acerbic, and perhaps the other way is gentle or kind. Perhaps the truth is also both, as perhaps the exoteric layer of the truth is kinder than the esoteric layer. Perhaps the truth is kinder to beginners, or to the general public laymen.

I think that even if the 'truth' is 'acerbic,' we should probably strive to make it kind. I don't think that truth/honesty has to be so raw even if it wants to be, as the ascerbic path seems like it has the potential to be discouraging. Perhaps the truth needn't melt away falsity without understanding and consideration

Still, if the truth is packaged with too much fluff, perhaps the seekers of it will be ill trained when it matters. I don't know

Truth is truth in accordance with fact or reality, it has one common feature, it is true. How that truth is expressed doesn't really matter and usually depends on circumstances. Sometimes hard truth is required, sometimes a gentle understanding is called for. However it is expressed does not make the truth any more or less valid.

 

[Thief]

How that truth is expressed doesn't really matter and usually depends on circumstances.

oh oh

 

[Jim]

I see two basic approaches or ways of conveying what we call the 'truth' - one way is acerbic, and perhaps the other way is gentle or kind. Perhaps the truth is also both, as perhaps the exoteric layer of the truth is kinder than the esoteric layer. Perhaps the truth is kinder to beginners, or to the general public laymen.

I think that even if the 'truth' is 'acerbic,' we should probably strive to make it kind. I don't think that truth/honesty has to be so raw even if it wants to be, as the ascerbic path seems like it has the potential to be discouraging. Perhaps the truth needn't melt away falsity without understanding and consideration

Still, if the truth is packaged with too much fluff, perhaps the seekers of it will be ill trained when it matters. I don't know

Looking again, I’m not sure now that I understand what this is about. I’m thinking now that it might be about objections to insults and personal attacks being misrepresented and stigmatized as opposition to truthfulness and sincerity, or as an inability or unwillingness to face the truth.

I think that the reasons for insults and personal attacks are not because people are trying be truthful, honest and sincere.

I think that besides having more fun, people learn more from other people when they are genuinely friendly, and not vilifying or disparaging anyone’s character, capacities, motives or intentions.

I’m thinking now that no matter what anyone says or does, insults and personal attacks in Internet discussions will keep happening for a few more generations at least, but any two people who both want to can have discussions between them without insults and personal attacks, and anyone who wants to can help reduce and counteract the damage to other people and their discussions, from insults and personal attacks.

 

[Jim]

I see two basic approaches or ways of conveying what we call the 'truth' - one way is acerbic, and perhaps the other way is gentle or kind. Perhaps the truth is also both, as perhaps the exoteric layer of the truth is kinder than the esoteric layer. Perhaps the truth is kinder to beginners, or to the general public laymen.

I think that even if the 'truth' is 'acerbic,' we should probably strive to make it kind. I don't think that truth/honesty has to be so raw even if it wants to be, as the ascerbic path seems like it has the potential to be discouraging. Perhaps the truth needn't melt away falsity without understanding and consideration

Still, if the truth is packaged with too much fluff, perhaps the seekers of it will be ill trained when it matters. I don't know

I’m not sure what you mean by “acerbic.” Some definitions that I found are “sharp,” “harsh” and “sarcastic.” If that’s really what you mean, then I don’t see any problem with it. It doesn’t matter to me how sharp, harsh or sarcastic people are in their criticism of some views and ways of thinking. The problem that I see is in insults and personal attacks, and that has nothing to do with how spiky or fluffy the words are that carry them. In fact, fluffy wrapping around insults and personal attacks makes them look even more insulting and offensive to me.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I have read your comments, good input

 

[Milton Platt]

I see two basic approaches or ways of conveying what we call the 'truth' - one way is acerbic, and perhaps the other way is gentle or kind. Perhaps the truth is also both, as perhaps the exoteric layer of the truth is kinder than the esoteric layer. Perhaps the truth is kinder to beginners, or to the general public laymen.

I think that even if the 'truth' is 'acerbic,' we should probably strive to make it kind. I don't think that truth/honesty has to be so raw even if it wants to be, as the ascerbic path seems like it has the potential to be discouraging. Perhaps the truth needn't melt away falsity without understanding and consideration

Still, if the truth is packaged with too much fluff, perhaps the seekers of it will be ill trained when it matters. I don't know

It is a delicate balance. And impossible to do perfectly. I have often tried to be gentle with stating something, only to have it misunderstood, or worse, ignored. I end up restating the same objection or pointing out the same problem several times in an increasingly more direct manner until I am at the "in your face" level I was trying to avoid.

 

[Milton Platt]

I don't understand the question.
Truth is truth. There's no 'should' to it.
Truth can be happy or sad, frightening or soothing, exciting, depressing, sad, disappointing, inspiring -- it can be anything.

His concern seems to be that if something is presented in a point blank way, sometimes the people who need to hear it won't hear it because emotions will override intellect. Which is true. but sometimes, there is no way to be gentle, and sometimes, no matter how gentile one is with words, it won't matter.

 

[Jim]

It is a delicate balance.

There’s nothing to balance. Vilifying or disparaging a person’s character, capacities, motives or intentions never does anything to help clarify any issues or to help anyone learn anything. It’s a notorious logical fallacy. There’s no opposition, and nothing to balance, between being truthful and frank, and avoiding logical fallacies.