Why do so many people live life in lies?

[utopian]

We had a new girl at work tonight. Cleaning the kitchen at night is always hard work. She says to us, she has seen bigger messes at another restaurant. We are all facetiously  impressed by her saltiness. I make her clean the dough press, full of nasty gooey concoctions of oil, dough, butter and salt. Suddenly she feels like quitting. 

 

It's not the first lie she tries to live. She tries to say a few more and I keep shutting her down. She hates me, but I don't care. I need good workers, not good talkers. Unfortunately, this problem is not limited to her, or to people at work. 

 

 

 

I can't help but always notice, when someone is living a lie. It gives me power over them. It's like pulling out a rug from under someone. If you ever screw me, or are unnecessarily rude to me, I pull the rug of lies out from under you, and laugh as you hit the cold hard floor of truth. People then want to get mad because they expect me to put my time and energy and money and everything else forth propping up their lies. 

 

 

It has always made me more powerful as well, to face and accept the cold hard truth. No one can pull any rugs out from under me, unless I allow them to. I would only allow such things, if I was lying to myself... which is different from just being uninformed. I can accept some truth about myself right now. There is a lot that I don't know. I am not very popular at parties, or anywhere else. I am lazy, in the sense that I am comfortable in this job when I could be doing a lot better. 

 

 

But considering how easily people can be messed with when they are living a lie, I have always been baffled at how little people are willing to seek and accept the truth. Oh, how people can hurt, living lies. Most people can't even comprehend the pain and suffering that can come from other people living lies. Indeed, many people in America, even the world, could suffer greatly, just because they believed the lies of the wrong presidential candidate, and voted them into office. And then, of course, there is always THE lie. The greatest of lies. That America is about freedom, and we are all free, and that's what we always fight for. An entire nation, an entire world, run by living lies. 

 

 

I mean, I could see the allure of it. I like to live certain lies. I like movies and video games and books. I enjoy being temporarily enthralled in dramatic fantasies that don't actually exist. I like to pretend I am a dramatic book character, or a heroic video game character, or an adventurous movie character. But I always come back to reality. I always go back to responsibilities and work. My fantasies cannot be supported, without my realities being properly taken care of. 

 

 

 

Even Stephan has noted, not only how willing people are to live in lies, but how seemingly forgetful, or maybe willingly ignorant, people generally are;

 

 

 

 

Other men can also be prone to living lies, but it is much more uncommon, compared to women. Truth is generally avoided by women, as can be seen in things as simple as the female population on this very forum. Girls like the one I was working with today are not uncommon. The better ones just work while they are speaking the lies they live. Customers come in saying we did something wrong with their food, even if they ordered it that way. They are just trying to get free stuff. It's always women.

 

 

 

And of course, there is always dating them. Just the other day, I sat across the dinner table from a noticeably attractive female. The restaurant was a little more higher end, because the truth is women like the nice things money buys. The truth is, she expects me to pay her way through the date, because otherwise, this would be going nowhere. The truth is, she will indulge in her lies, because they make her feel good, and that's all she cares about. The truth is I will indulge in them as well, because the truth is all I care to do is sleep with her.

 

I already know I don't like her personality. I already know she will never make for a good relationship. I already know she would be a horrible mother of children. But the truth is that ugly women also lie to themselves as well, and if I am going to put up with this shit I might as well go for an attractive girl. Society calls it "maturity" when you indulge in a woman's living lies, although real maturity would be for her to not live them in the first place. But the truth is, I did try not playing women and looking for a decent one, and the truth is I spent a ridiculous amount of time and money on it and never found anything worthwhile. I don't care to put up with women's games, or lies, or anyone elses for that matter, ever again.

 

 

 

 

 

Because there is a greater truth encompassing everything else, and all of everyone's lives are insignificant in the face of it. There is another lie the world is currently living, that threatens the entire world. America is living the lie that it is supporting the Syrian rebels, which America itself actually created. Meanwhile, Russia is living the lie that it is bombing targets in Syria, supposedly in line with America's goals. Except Russia is actually bombing rebels in support of Assad, the rebels that America will not admit it created. The truth is that we are currently fighting a proxy war, with American and Russian fighters fighting in the same airspace. The truth is, we could all get nuked tomorrow, and I would have died without living my life to the fullest because of some naive code of ethics society expects me to live by. Because society expects me to be afraid of some deity and some afterlife that has never been proven. The truth is, I have only ever been miserable pandering to society and living in lies, and so is everyone else, but they are too afraid to admit it. 

 

 

 

 

 

It makes me think of a book I once read, "Fahrenheit 451" in which people willingly live a life of lies until the rug of their lies is pulled out from under them and they all fall into their nuclear fired deaths. When people in general so willingly give themselves to such conditions, I can't help but feel justified in being the one to pull the rug myself.

[A4E]

edit: fixed.

[Will Torbald]

Because it maximises their chances of survival and reproduction in a society built on lies. In a world that's immoral, being immoral gives you higher returns. But I wonder though, are you sure you have eliminated all falsehood from your mind? Have you transformed all the 99% probabilities of certainties into 100% truths? I'm just curious, but it could also be helpful to you.

[dsayers]

The greatest of lies. That America is about freedom

 

This can't be the greatest of lies because it is a symptom, not the problem. The greatest of lies is that humans exist in different, opposing moral categories. You have to subscribe to that lie before you can subjugate another person before you can convince the subjugated that there is a god or a king or a country.

 

From the moment we are conceived our prime directive is to adapt to survive. This begins with identifying the world we live in and its properties. If you develop with beliefs like gods, kings, or countries exist, then to face the truth would mean the world you thought you understood isn't the world at all. That the people you trusted, who were responsible for your well-being, lied to and failed you. From a survival standpoint, these realizations can be catastrophic. It's easier to live in fantasy than reality. Especially when there is no shortage of people who will confirm your bias.

[Sima]

you have to lie, if you want to avoid sadistic person hurting you. if a sadist knows the truth he will use that truth to hurt you.

[A4E]

you have to lie, if you want to avoid sadistic person hurting you. if a sadist knows the truth he will use that truth to hurt you.

Stefan's guide here that i learned from him would go something like this:

 

Telling the truth makes you vulnerable. Being vulnerable will reveal all sadists and assholes around you. Life is way too valuable and short to spend with assholes, so now that you know who they are, do not give any more time to them.

[utopian]

 

Because it maximises their chances of survival and reproduction in a society built on lies. In a world that's immoral, being immoral gives you higher returns. But I wonder though, are you sure you have eliminated all falsehood from your mind? Have you transformed all the 99% probabilities of certainties into 100% truths? I'm just curious, but it could also be helpful to you.

 

Acceptable, though in the long run, living in lies always leaves you empty handed. I myself have experienced some of these aspects. Luckily I realized what I was missing in time to change things. If I were say, a prude attractive woman getting free stuff and never giving back, I would have no one to blame but myself when I grow older and have no resume or work skills, and no one wants me. 

 

I would say, I believe I have eliminated most of the falsehood from my mind. There are things that I do to affirm and corroborate what I say and do. The girl at work, for example, was also trying to tell me I never know who could be a psychotic murderer with bodies in their house, implying she had some. I have no falsehoods like that in my mind, certainly. Also, I think just from my first post here anyone could see I am fairly straightforward and accepting of myself. But if there is a way you think I am lying to myself, I would be interested to hear it, genuinely. Better you tell me than pull the rug from me later.

 

 

 The greatest of lies is that humans exist in different, opposing moral categories. You have to subscribe to that lie before you can subjugate another person before you can convince the subjugated that there is a god or a king or a country.

 

From the moment we are conceived our prime directive is to adapt to survive. This begins with identifying the world we live in and its properties. If you develop with beliefs like gods, kings, or countries exist, then to face the truth would mean the world you thought you understood isn't the world at all. That the people you trusted, who were responsible for your well-being, lied to and failed you. From a survival standpoint, these realizations can be catastrophic. It's easier to live in fantasy than reality. Especially when there is no shortage of people who will confirm your bias.

 

Hmm... so if that is the greatest of lies, what is the truth? I am thinking the one true moral category is survival of the fittest?

 

Kings and countries do have real consequences, though. If a commoner tells other people to kill me, they will probably laugh at him. If a king tells others to kill me, it just might happen. 

 

You have a point, that living lies is easier. It is also self destructive in the long run, like I previously mentioned about the former attractive woman. It's unsustainable, and people have to face the truth sooner or later. I can't see how the prospect of living a life of lies is so widespread, I can't see how its been sustained as to be so prevalent. How are so many people being sustained this way? It's as if people are going around living the lie that they don't need food. Eventually they are going to have to eat, or they are going to die. Last time I checked the world population is only getting bigger. 

[dsayers]

Hmm... so if that is the greatest of lies, what is the truth? I am thinking the one true moral category is survival of the fittest?

 

No, because "fittest" is subjective. The truth is that humans are not fundamentally different in a way that I could own myself but you don't own yourself. Theft, assault, rape, and murder are all behaviors a person can engage in where they use their property (body, time, effort) to deprive others use of their property. It's a performative contradiction. A confession of wrong doing.

 

Kings and countries do have real consequences, though. If a commoner tells other people to kill me, they will probably laugh at him. If a king tells others to kill me, it just might happen. 

 

This is an effect of the BELIEF that kings and countries are valid concepts or actually exist. If you tried to kill me, people might stop you. If they couldn't manage to, they would at least hold you accountable, accurately understanding that you have committed murder. If you were a king or performing that behavior in the name of the State, it's mechanically identical, but people BELIEVE it's different because they believe such people are operating in a different, opposing moral category. Where theft, assault, rape, and murder and righteous, necessary, and worthy of praise.

 

I understand your frustration. I talk to people all the time who live their lives, achieving their goals, not directly initiation the use of force against anybody. Which is true of everybody they know. Yet they're convinced that we cannot exist without using violence to achieve our goals. People who believe you need to violate property rights in order to protect property rights that experience no dissonance in this blatant self-detonating claim.

[Will Torbald]

 

 

 

Acceptable, though in the long run, living in lies always leaves you empty handed. I myself have experienced some of these aspects. Luckily I realized what I was missing in time to change things. If I were say, a prude attractive woman getting free stuff and never giving back, I would have no one to blame but myself when I grow older and have no resume or work skills, and no one wants me. 

 

I would say, I believe I have eliminated most of the falsehood from my mind. There are things that I do to affirm and corroborate what I say and do. The girl at work, for example, was also trying to tell me I never know who could be a psychotic murderer with bodies in their house, implying she had some. I have no falsehoods like that in my mind, certainly. Also, I think just from my first post here anyone could see I am fairly straightforward and accepting of myself. But if there is a way you think I am lying to myself, I would be interested to hear it, genuinely. Better you tell me than pull the rug from me later.

 

 

 

Hmm... so if that is the greatest of lies, what is the truth? I am thinking the one true moral category is survival of the fittest?

 

Kings and countries do have real consequences, though. If a commoner tells other people to kill me, they will probably laugh at him. If a king tells others to kill me, it just might happen. 

 

You have a point, that living lies is easier. It is also self destructive in the long run, like I previously mentioned about the former attractive woman. It's unsustainable, and people have to face the truth sooner or later. I can't see how the prospect of living a life of lies is so widespread, I can't see how its been sustained as to be so prevalent. How are so many people being sustained this way? It's as if people are going around living the lie that they don't need food. Eventually they are going to have to eat, or they are going to die. Last time I checked the world population is only getting bigger. 

 

 

There's the lies we tell ourselves, and the lies we tell others. The person deceiving others is gaining something. Like a politician, or priest. Telling lies to others always pays off as long as you don't get caught.

 

What your coworker said is categorically true. You can't be certain of the past of other people if you haven't been there or have evidence. It's like the show Dexter where normal people don't suspect him. However paranoid it sounds, it's just true. But the problem is going to Neptune with that idea and becoming a conspiracy theorist or a pathologically paranoid person who is afraid of everyone. At one point you just have to hope for the best with the knowledge you have.

 

I don't know any specific falsehood you have, I'm just going by the signs. You're confident in your mind and looking at the falsehoods of others, so that means you have reached a plateu of evolution and feel better looking at others than at yourself. When that happens a person no longer evolves their mind, and in turn switches their attention outward and sees all the flaws and falsehoods of everyone else. So I was curious, were you done with your self knowledge?

 

The Dawkins Scale is a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 is absolute certainty of a god, and 7 is absolute certainty of the non existence of a god. Philosophically, a self contradicting being has 0% probability of existing, so this will leave a 7 in the scale - yet even other rational people prefer to say they are a 6 or a 6.5 without fully committing to the idea. Even Dawkins says he doesn't reach a 7. Now, this isn't only about god, it's an example, but the same scale applied to any knowledge given to probability and certainty applies. How many 7's and 1's do you have? What are you certain is and isn't?

 

Finally, your observation on morality is in contrast to the morality advocated here which is a rational proof of universal ethics, UPB, where it explains why the "might makes right" morality of the jungle is irrational. This would be an example of an area where falsehood could be eliminated, I'd say.

[utopian]

 

you have to lie, if you want to avoid sadistic person hurting you. if a sadist knows the truth he will use that truth to hurt you.

 

Stefan's guide here that i learned from him would go something like this:

 

Telling the truth makes you vulnerable. Being vulnerable will reveal all sadists and assholes around you. Life is way too valuable and short to spend with assholes, so now that you know who they are, do not give any more time to them.

 

I agree with both of these, although, being vulnerable tends to be tiresome when you reveal just how many assholes there are around you. I generally assume most people are assholes, until they prove otherwise. It happens every once in a while. 

 

 

This is an effect of the BELIEF that kings and countries are valid concepts or actually exist. 

 

I understand your frustration. I talk to people all the time who live their lives, achieving their goals, not directly initiation the use of force against anybody. Which is true of everybody they know. Yet they're convinced that we cannot exist without using violence to achieve our goals. People who believe you need to violate property rights in order to protect property rights that experience no dissonance in this blatant self-detonating claim.

Interesting stuff, but I think we got off point here a bit. Relevant, I think, is the concept of beliefs and ideas not being real, and still having real consequences. People's lies are not real. For example, the lie of the state doing good for us, so we should pay taxes to it, when really the state does just as much harm if not more. These lies, whether real or not, are damaging, and should not be as sustainable and widespread as they are. These things should in fact be self detonating. I can't see how humanity continues on for so long this way.

 

 

What your coworker said is categorically true. You can't be certain of the past of other people if you haven't been there or have evidence. 

 

I don't know any specific falsehood you have, I'm just going by the signs. You're confident in your mind and looking at the falsehoods of others, so that means you have reached a plateu of evolution and feel better looking at others than at yourself. When that happens a person no longer evolves their mind, and in turn switches their attention outward and sees all the flaws and falsehoods of everyone else. So I was curious, were you done with your self knowledge?

 

The Dawkins Scale is a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 is absolute certainty of a god, and 7 is absolute certainty of the non existence of a god. Philosophically, a self contradicting being has 0% probability of existing, so this will leave a 7 in the scale - yet even other rational people prefer to say they are a 6 or a 6.5 without fully committing to the idea. Even Dawkins says he doesn't reach a 7. Now, this isn't only about god, it's an example, but the same scale applied to any knowledge given to probability and certainty applies. How many 7's and 1's do you have? What are you certain is and isn't?

 

Finally, your observation on morality is in contrast to the morality advocated here which is a rational proof of universal ethics, UPB, where it explains why the "might makes right" morality of the jungle is irrational. This would be an example of an area where falsehood could be eliminated, I'd say.

 

I cannot be sure of what she said, no, but I can test for congruence, and she did not seem to pass. Its not the first time or the only example. 

 

It is true, I seem to have reached a point at which I feel I can no longer improve, on my own. It's part of the reason I am on this forum, to check out other opinions and ideas. I often find, however, that a lot of my thoughts are agreed with, like Stephan in the video I linked saying (I cant remember the exact words) something to the effect of he cannot justify the continued existence of humanity.

 

I would not say I am done with my self knowledge, or that I will ever truly be. I would say, I am more developed along my path than many people, and I am looking for other ways to develop. 

 

Your Dawkins scale question is kinda vague, I have many 1s and 7s, and 2s and 6es and so on. What do you want a rating for?

 

 

UPB and survival of the fittest is indeed one of my philosophical struggles. On one hand, things like UPB, peaceful parenting and other such philosophies represent to me the pinnacle of humanity. On the other hand, the validity of survival of the fittest is unassailable, as we are only alive because of it's validity. Arguably, the only reason we have humanity in modern times, is because our developed humanity is protected by the philosophy of survival of the fittest, as in the case of the US military industrial complex kicking the ass of anyone who would disturb our tranquil lifestyle. The book "Lord of the Flies" comes to mind, where the moral of the story is we all believe we are above survival of the fittest, but when left alone starving on an island, our true nature reveals itself. This theme is supported by the end of the book, if you have read it.

[labmath2]

Your post reminds me of Galt's rafio speech. Though i think his was more impactful.

[patrick4]

Legitimacy and proof we've done something or that we've reached some milestone is a source of pride and embarrassment.  Therefore, if we shame people for not having attained our ideal of legitimacy, then they will lie to us so we don't embarrass them with our unwarranted need to scrutinize their worth.  

[Des]

 

UPB and survival of the fittest is indeed one of my philosophical struggles. On one hand, things like UPB, peaceful parenting and other such philosophies represent to me the pinnacle of humanity. On the other hand, the validity of survival of the fittest is unassailable, as we are only alive because of it's validity. Arguably, the only reason we have humanity in modern times, is because our developed humanity is protected by the philosophy of survival of the fittest, as in the case of the US military industrial complex kicking the ass of anyone who would disturb our tranquil lifestyle. The book "Lord of the Flies" comes to mind, where the moral of the story is we all believe we are above survival of the fittest, but when left alone starving on an island, our true nature reveals itself. This theme is supported by the end of the book, if you have read it.

 

 

I get a definition of evil, from the concept of a pact, in which all pact members would agree to do-no-evil to each other. If there were adequate food on the island, then each person would be better off committing to the pact to do-no-evil (and following through on his commitment). That won't happen if food is so scarce that people have to be on the menu, because no-one who follows through on his commitment to do-no-evil, can survive. The theory of a pact still defines what must be evil, even in the case that the pact is never going to happen.

 

Since evil gets it's definition from my preference to stay alive, I am going to prefer staying alive over avoiding evil. No logical error in that.

[dsayers]

@Des: What is your definition of evil? Is it putting forth a standard and exempting yourself? Is it a willingness to violate the property rights of others? Are these definitions the same thing?

 

There is no pact required and this is my favorite thing about objective morality: The very person violating the property rights of another is telling you with their actions that they are violating property rights!

 

Regarding cannibalism in a do or die scenario: I can certainly understand it. But it's still a violation of property rights.