I always tell the truth, even when I lie.

The line is from Scarface, and if you don't remember it comes toward the end of the movie, when Tony Montana is drunkenly addressing the rich folks at an upscale restaurant, who are all staring back at him as he stumbles around in his suit. He calls them hypocrites, tells them they need a person like him to demonize, so that they can feel more secure in their self-righteousness.

How is it that such a self-contradictory statement can convey meaning? And why does this kind of speech-act seem to occasion such a unique and bountiful kind of pleasure? I wonder what my fellow forumites have to say about this. Are you drawn to it? Is it non-sense? A cheap trick?

Thanks.

The essence is in your phrase "speech-act". It isn't just the logical contradiction in the words that are interesting, but the *act* of using this paradox. Why was it used? What was the intended effect on the audience?

Paradoxes in art are fun - they force you to pay attention.

How is it that such a self-contradictory statement can convey meaning? And why does this kind of speech-act seem to occasion such a unique and bountiful kind of pleasure? I wonder what my fellow forumites have to say about this. Are you drawn to it? Is it non-sense? A cheap trick?

All of the above. A lot of gangster movies have a romanticist ethos, the idea that we should stay true to ourselves, never sellout or compromise, even if this generates tragic consequences. Scarface is not an exception. By his paradoxical statement, Tony Montana means he is living authentically, while those that judge him are phonies. It is also likeable because, by breaking conventions, the statement gives us an "alpha" vibe. After all, the dark triad of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy is part of charisma; think of why everyone likes Bender from Futurama.

A lot of gangster movies have a romanticist ethos, the idea that we should stay true to ourselves, never sellout or compromise, even if this generates tragic consequences. Scarface is not an exception. By his paradoxical statement, Tony Montana means he is living authentically, while those that judge him are phonies. It is also likeable because, by breaking conventions, the statement gives us an "alpha" vibe. After all, the dark triad of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy is part of charisma; think of why everyone likes Bender from Futurama.

Yeah man, your hammer met the nail with this analysis. Good one.

Yes, Insext, paradoxes are fun. In the context both of liars and paradoxes, I always liked the statement, allegedly made by a Cretian, that "all Cretians are liars". True or false? Such simple words to present an ultimate paradox.

The line is from Scarface, and if you don't remember it comes toward the end of the movie, when Tony Montana is drunkenly addressing the rich folks at an upscale restaurant, who are all staring back at him as he stumbles around in his suit. He calls them hypocrites, tells them they need a person like him to demonize, so that they can feel more secure in their self-righteousness.

How is it that such a self-contradictory statement can convey meaning? And why does this kind of speech-act seem to occasion such a unique and bountiful kind of pleasure? I wonder what my fellow forumites have to say about this. Are you drawn to it? Is it non-sense? A cheap trick?

Thanks.

Maybe they did not demonize him at all, but it was his own jealousy and drunkenness that demonized him, thus supposing what the rich folks thought.

This thread is an excellent example of the plausibility of perspectivism as an ontological substrate of moral pragmatism. Everyone is wright and everyone is wrong and the the interactions and reactions reinforce this. When a compromise is struck the perspective just evolves.

Well, I can honestly say that I also tell the truth even when I lie. I don't find it a confusing statement because I take it to mean that when I lie, I feel truthful about it. We have to lie sometimes. We have to protect ourselves and sometimes we have to protect those we are lying to by lying to them. Not everybody is ready to hear what is true. And that is no lie.

What a fine philosophy-killing topic.

Of course you tell the truth even when you lie, because whatever you do in a milisecond - be it an act of breathing, raising hand, praying to God, thinking about lost love, turning the steering wheel, speaking a lie - your act is purely biological and predictable (but so complex that humankind haven't found a scientific explanation for all such acts and still refer to them by means of religion and philosophy).

I don't think the topic kills philosophy. Your own reply and that of Granth shows that goodness and truth are related, and ultimately the same.

goodness and truth

Oh, and what they are and can we ALL agree what these terms mean? If not - this discussion is futile. To have "productive conversations" like Scott describes it we should all decide what we all agree with, find the common denominator. If there's no such thing - well, here you have your "philosophy". People expressing themselves rather than debating "issues".

For example - it's hard to discuss something when somebody thinks that he uses his language to discuss problems while his interlocutor is assured that language itself is the problem and we only lay traps on ourselves rather than discussing anything.

maybe the real statement is: I always lie, even when I tell the truth.

No. The "real statement" is: I always speak, so I always speak.

The rest is ********.

Oh, and what they are and can we ALL agree what these terms mean? If not - this discussion is futile. To have "productive conversations" like Scott describes it we should all decide what we all agree with, find the common denominator. If there's no such thing - well, here you have your "philosophy". People expressing themselves rather than debating "issues".

For example - it's hard to discuss something when somebody thinks that he uses his language to discuss problems while his interlocutor is assured that language itself is the problem and we only lay traps on ourselves rather than discussing anything.

I wrote 'goodness and truth' and the abobve is EMTe's reply.

In reply to EMTe I say that it is easier to define badness and lies than to define the positives. I do not know why this is. Goodness and truth are what we aim for and they don't have to be absolutely attainable or even completely comprehensible for us to be looking in the right direction.Probably goodness and truth are not goodness and truth when someone tries to pin them down to definitions.

It often happens that blatant and intentional lies are meant to indicate the opposite in the form of irony, sarcasm and metaphors of all kinds. Psychology is often indirect in expounding a so-called truth where a lie can be as truth revealing in a negative sense as any direct assertion of it. There is nothing new in this. Literature contains many such indirect references. The truth perspective is Janus based and usually with more than two faces.