<< February 2006 >>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
 
1
2
34
567
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 
+ all -

Similarly slated

Excuse me, are you lost? Perhaps you would care to visit the site map

timshel.

Composition

Would you like to comment on this entry?

"Everything counts a little more than we think..."

07 February 2006 Tuesday

Complete honesty

slated in mused at 2:53 am

[the following is considered in the context of a long-term/meaningful relationship, probably romantic though not necessarily]

Is it necessary to trust someone completely, or just essentially?

If you can trust that they essentially care about you and would essentially never partake in anything that would directly/clearly make you unhappy or cause you harm, then is that enough?

Do white lies count? Are white lies those that are told for the intended benefit of the person being lied to? Or are they simply lies that are not supposed to be harmful to the person being lied to? In either case they’re deceit. In only one of those two cases is the action made with consideration and intentional purpose for the other person—such as to tell them you’re taking them to see a movie when you’re really taking them to see their favorite band to which concert you secretly attained tickets to. In the other case, the (white?) lie is told for the benefit of the liar, such as to say you’re running late because a tree had fallen and was blocking your driveway, rather than the truth that you were on the phone with someone you’d prefer not to mention.

can love be completely real without complete honesty? heh… is it just “essentially” love if it’s based on “essential” honesty? sounds dumb to me. while i’m not a believer in black and white, and in fact believe that there are greys to everything, i also think that you’re either completely honest with someone or you’re not. and if you’re not being completely honest with them, i guess you may as well lie and tell them you’re being completely honest.. hm.

perhaps fibs, white lies, and especially deliberate ommissions are necessary for one to be completely themselves, to do what they want to do—and at the same time to avoid either upsetting the other person, or to avoid being frustrated by the other person in response to what you’d hide from them.

“What he doesn’t know won’t hurt him.”

Several years back, I gave a considerable amount of thought to the idea that there are some things you/I’d just be better off not knowing. I decided firmly, however naively, that i would always rather know than not.
There are actually many circumstances and what I would claim to be most of the population, for which I believe a person is better off never knowing; that they can live their lives better and happier by not being aware of something, though it is real and true.

I am not one of them, and I don’t care what the situation is or how much it will hurt me. I want to know.

I’ve had that concept tested a bit.. I’ve been told things or learned things that shifted my whole world (sounds terribly dramatic, but actually reasonably true to say).. I maintain that for better or worse, I would always rather know.

And back to the concept of complete honesty…
I think if intentions are really good and reasonably ambitious, that it should be openly conveyed if deciding to just do partial/mostly honesty, rather than ‘complete’ as far as reasonable (—being that things can be kept secret, as long as it’s honestly spoken that particular things re being kept secret.)
That it’s “ultimately” trust rather than “ultimate trust”. They’re not the same thing at all.

Subscribe to XML comments feed for this article

If you don't have one (and would like one), get a Gravatar.

Add your comment here:

*Must click Preview first, and your comment will NOT go through until
you hit SUBMIT after previewing. (It's a spam-prevention thing.)
From here you may like to visit the archive, go home,
or page through other journal entries: