Jeffrey Shaw Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Also, distinguish: a. "the truth"; b. "the whole truth"; and c. "nothing but the truth". They're not the same! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 b and c are subsets of a. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 b and c are subsets of a. Yes, they are, but- just as in Court- someone who's not actually lying can be telling either the whole truth or part of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Indeed, or adding bits (hence "nothing but the truth"). I was just analysing a, b and c and their relationship. But a) True facts b) facts There is no subset here, these are the same set in their entirety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 I have issues with "the truth" - what is it and what does it look like? And why is there only one truth, when it seems totally obvious to me that there are many, many truths. It ain't an absolute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessica23 Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 I have issues with "the truth" - what is it and what does it look like? And why is there only one truth, when it seems totally obvious to me that there are many, many truths. It ain't an absolute. Quite. jhk;lk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 I have issues with "the truth" - what is it and what does it look like? And why is there only one truth, when it seems totally obvious to me that there are many, many truths. It ain't an absolute. In the case of a court you are being enjoined to tell the truth as you perceive it (and the whole truth, ie omit nothing, and nothing but the truth, ie don't add anything). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 "As you perceive it" is a bit weaselly! Consider almost any contested case, civil or criminal- even if there is no perjury, each side's witnesses are giving different (and often quite opposite) evidence. They can still be parts of the whole truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 I think "the whole truth" is a meaningless and redundant concept. Only an omniscient being could tell "the whole truth". And Prak, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 I think "the whole truth" is a meaningless and redundant concept. Only an omniscient being could tell "the whole truth". And Prak, of course. As i understand it in the legal sense it refers to omissions by witnesses, not knowing everything that can be known. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.