What alternative is there to radical honesty?
The computational argument for honesty is that it saves time. Radical honesty is proportional to our collective processing speed.
What alternative is there to radical honesty?
My wife asked me recently if I've ever regretted telling the truth... I thought for a long time and couldn't think of a single example.
I've definitely regretted (and resented) white lies, glaring omissions, deceptions, and the like.
And life has punished me for them. (And with them.)
I can't find a consistent interpretation of everything I've experienced in 37 years except to say that my punishment is just and that the problem is not that I was punished too much, but that dishonesty is ever tolerated at all, so I was taught the wrong lesson at times.
JBP sent me back to my Christian roots this way--I once argued the opposite view to him.
But there is no greater meaning than honest transparent coordination of our perspective for the sake of the mysteries of the universe--and that mystery is everywhere; every lie gets us further from unraveling it.
The less transparent we are the more we 'other' others.
But the collective can function as an epistemic whole.
https://www.facebook.com/adamgolding/posts/10107210546618852
It's cynical to think radical honesty comes from a desire to be 'edgy'--that it's edgy at all is a travesty.
And I have been part of that travesty in small ways--others in much bigger ways, but that's no excuse, and neither is fear of the consequences of honesty--I am no longer a consequentialist about honesty, in the sense of consequences the individual values or reasons are good--an honest collective can figure out what the consequences of its other collective actions are: it's a *precondition* for consequentialism at the collective level, not a consequence of it.
I grew up thinking this way, and found The Church not honest enough, which is why I left. A sickening number of individualist atheists argued to me in the aftermath in favor of various small exceptions to honesty and transparency and I'm done with it all--my greatest sin is listening to them. I've never been more honest in my life, which means something bad will eventually happen to me--which is entirely the point--if you're only honest when you expect good results, you aren't.
Atheism absolves no one from taking a collective perspective on every action, and an individual perspective is too limited to justify a 'trick' of any kind. Can you honestly argue with this?
Honesty means individual sacrifice and the courage that requires--tricks are a clever coward's game, and I would rather summon stupid courage. To depart from this saps life of its very meaning--how smart is that?
That, my friends, is the alternative.
AI TAKE "The alternative to radical honesty, as described in the text, is to prioritize transparency and collective coordination in decision-making, rather than individual convenience or a fear of consequences. This approach emphasizes the importance of being honest and transparent in all interactions, and regards dishonesty and deception as detrimental to the collective pursuit of knowledge and understanding. It also emphasizes the need for individuals to be willing to sacrifice their own interests for the sake of the collective, and to have the courage to be honest even when it may be difficult or have negative consequences.
adamgolding@gmail.com
That's not the alternative, that IS radical honest
Yes, you are correct. The text describes radical honesty as the alternative to dishonesty and deception. It emphasizes the importance of being transparent and coordinating with others for the sake of the collective, rather than prioritizing individual convenience or a fear of consequences. This approach is based on the belief that honesty is necessary for the collective pursuit of knowledge and understanding, and that dishonesty and deception are detrimental to that pursuit."
SEQUEL: https://www.instagram.com/p/Ck85lObpo5k/