tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post4518182581262980484..comments2024-03-28T13:23:50.623-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: "I swear to tell the truth..."Alexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-77449561950334245302011-07-20T13:31:47.380-05:002011-07-20T13:31:47.380-05:00Yes, but in that case I'm (analogously) culpab...Yes, but in that case I'm (analogously) culpable for not having lifted the weight I'm able to lift. What I'm suggesting is that if I am not (analogously) culpable for not having lifted the weight- say I lift 50 pounds, which is all I'm able to lift- but the weight still isn't lifted, it seems we should conclude the balloon hasn't provided sufficient help (lifting the balloon with a buoyance force of at least 50 pounds.)Chris Tweedthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10011727498507972278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-15736845552820707692011-07-20T13:05:22.116-05:002011-07-20T13:05:22.116-05:00"If someone has broken their oath but are not..."If someone has broken their oath but are not culpable for breaking it, are we to conclude that God has not provided sufficient help for someone to keep the oath under their own power?"<br /><br />I don't see why we should conclude that. If you can lift 50 pounds but no more, and we have a 100 pound object to move, and I attach a helium balloon to it with a buoyancy force of 55 pounds, I have thereby provided you with sufficient help to lift the object--now you only need to lift 45 pounds. It does not follow from this, however, that you <em>will</em> lift the object--that's still up to you.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-61575342240420906712011-07-20T11:55:32.648-05:002011-07-20T11:55:32.648-05:00Perhaps all the oath (if taken literally) requires...Perhaps all the oath (if taken literally) requires of a witness is that she preface statements about which she is uncertain with, "I believe that..." Then, she'll always be telling the truth. Perhaps not the whole truth, though, because she could still omit some important truths.<br /><br />I'm also interested in the "...so help me, God," part of the oath. It's as if we're taking an oath to do something we (on our own) aren't able to do, so we're asking God for help. If someone has broken their oath but are not culpable for breaking it, are we to conclude that God has not provided sufficient help for someone to keep the oath under their own power?Chris Tweedthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10011727498507972278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-49700079189791952902011-07-20T10:47:40.343-05:002011-07-20T10:47:40.343-05:00Good point.
But I think "the whole truth&quo...Good point.<br /><br />But I think "the whole truth" makes it sound more like "the truth" is really the object of "tell".Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-59461208428886045662011-07-20T09:44:41.035-05:002011-07-20T09:44:41.035-05:00I suspect the oath is meant to be taken literally,...I suspect the oath is meant to be taken literally, though we should note that "truth" in English can denote truthfulness or honesty, as well as a true statement (i.e., one expressing a true proposition, or what have you). If you have access to the Oxford English Dictionary, look at sense 4 in particular.<br /><br />So it may be that the oath is meant to be a pledge of honesty.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01562649776374771198noreply@blogger.com