Re: BHA: Nixon's lies

[Louis Irwin <lirwin1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Michael,

Thanks for the comment.  I think I can clarify as follows.

>Wait a minute, Louis, you can't really "believe" what you just
>asserted about Nixon.

Here is what I believe:

1. Nixon was a crook.

2. Nixon knew he was a crook.

3. Nixon said that he was not a crook.

4. Nixon wanted his statement that he was not a crook to be believed and
accepted as true.

5. Anyone who ASSERTS a statement wants it to be believed and accepted as
true.

6. It is not possible to ASSERT a statement without at the same time
implying that you believe it is true.

Now to your concern.

>Doesn't it seem plausible, even likely,
>that Nixon "knew" he was lying when he said "I'm not a crook,"
>and that, mutatis mutandis, this is the case when a great many
>lies are told, viz., that they are told with the intent to
>deceive?

Without question.

>Thus the only truthful--but ineffective for the
>purposes intended--statement would then be:  "When I say 'I'm
>not a crook,' I know that this statement is false, but I am
>saying it anyway in order that people will believe me to be
>honest and therefore worthy to occupy the office."

Yes, Nixon could not have made a statement both truthful and effective.
Instead, he made a false statement that he hoped would be effective (alas
for him, it was not).  Nevertheless, his false assertion carried with it as
part of its content that what was being asserted was true, in other words
it was equivalent to "I am not a crook, and that's the truth", which is
just as false as the original.

In short, a false statement can carry with it an implication of truth, but
that implication, being part of the content of what is asserted, does not
make the statement true.

Whew!  Are we on the same wavelength?

Louis Irwin



     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---