The Cardinal Sin

Opposing Logos

I’ve always had a difficult time with liars.  When I know someone is lying to me, I might call them on it, but if they repeat the behavior, I tend to walk away, preferring never to talk with them.  So far as I can tell, there is no reason to keep talking to people you know lie to you.  You simply can’t know if they believe anything they say.  That they lie sometimes doesn’t mean they lie to you all the time, of course.  But you can’t know if they believe what they say at any point.  If you can’t know they believe what they say, their saying it should carry no weight and gives you little information about them (and what they believe).  If you lie, don’t expect others to listen to what you say.  Why would they after you’ve lied?

If someone denies the spoken or written word has value, they seem to put you in the same situation as the liar: as they don’t value the words they use, you can’t know if they believe what they say, so their saying it should carry no weight and gives you little information about them (and what they believe).  If they believe what they say, they must attribute some value to saying it which means attributing some value to the words. If you claim words have no meaning, don’t expect others to listen to what you say.  Why would they after you said your words have no meaning?.

If someone denies there is anything like objective truth (including, perhaps intersubjectively generated truth), you’re once again in the same situation.  They make a statement but don’t think it has any possibility of actually being true—because they deny there is such a thing.  If they don’t think their claims have something like objective truth, it’s unclear why they make such claims and unclear why they're making them should carry any weight (and its probably the case that you gain no information about them or what they believe).   If you claim there is nothing like objective truth, don’t expect others to listen to what you say.  Why would they after you said it can’t be true?

If someone refuses to speak with any attempt at precision, you’re once again in the same situation.  What they say may be true if understood in some (perhaps loose) way but not if understood in another way, which may be a more precise or natural understanding of the statements. It’s thus unclear why they make such claims, unclear why they're making them should carry any weight, and gives you little information about them (and what they believe). If you won’t attempt to speak with some precision, don’t expect others to listen to what you say.  Why would they when they know you may mean what you say only on a vague explication of it?

Lying, denying the value of words, denying there is such a thing as truth, and refusing to speak carefully (with some precision) all come to the same thing: they are ways of opposing the value of making clear, honest, truth claims and thereby communicating. They all make honest communication less likely.  Communication is necessary for us as social beings; honest communication is necessary for us to know one each other (really know each other—not just facades we sometimes wear).  This is to make our lives as social beings necessarily less good (and in the extreme, impossible). This opposition to the value of logos (words, truth, honesty) is the cardinal sin for social beings.