JL: >"With lying, it would logically contradict the reliability of language. ... Kant denied the right > to lie for any reason, regardless of context or anticipated consequences." > On the other hand, in the British Isles, they started the tradition to distinguish between > > lies and _white_ lies, where ´white´ is metaphorical. A metaphor for what? Purity? Why is white a metaphor for purity? Black would make more sense, i.e., the absence of all sins, while white is clearly all sinfulness. If Kant was serious in his condemnation of lying for any reason, then the man was an idiot whose moral compass was quite shallow. I know JL loves the Kantian absolutes such that to inform can have meaning only if the information is truly the case of the world. But then, who the hell knows what the true case of the world is? My case might not accord with your case. So whose info is info and whose is uninfo? I've always believed that life is sloppy. Truth is a mixture of myth and mores and desire and sometimes it might even accord with the case of the world, but who's to say? At best we're all working with refrigeration gauges that may or maybe not be giving accurate readings. You have go with your gut feelings often (or orphan as JL prefers). God apparently abandoned planet earth sometime back and left us to our devices. We're pretty proud of what we've learned even though we don't have the foggiest idea what existence IS. IS is, that's all we know. All else is guess work -- and some pretty high-fallutin' math, that maybe someone out there understands. Not me. Mike Geary just venting in Memphis On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 5:04 PM, <jlsperanza@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > From wiki, article on Kant: > > > Cheers, > > J. L. Speranza > Bordighera > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, > digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html >