Philosophy@Utah State

Home » Actual philosophical discussion! » Radical Honesty?

Radical Honesty?

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 108 other followers

Old Main, USU


You need a Philosophy T-shirt! For more information, please click here.


* Interested in presenting a paper at an UNDERGRADUATE PHILOSOPHY CONFERENCE or publishing in an UNDERGRADUATE PHILOSOPHY JOURNAL? You should consider it! To see what options are available, both in state and out of state, click here.


• Is the world eternal? YES
• Do humans have contra-causal free will (i.e., can humans do otherwise)? NO
• Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? YES
• Do humans have souls? YES
• Are there natural rights? YES
• Is it morally permissible to eat meat? NO
• Is the unexamined life worth living? NO
• Is truth subjectivity? YES
• Is virtue necessary for happiness? YES
• Can a computer have a mind? YES
• Can humans know reality as it is in itself? YES
• Is hell other people? YES
• Can art be created accidentally? NO
• Can we change the past? NO
• Are numbers real? NO
• Is it always better to know the truth? YES

Blog Stats

  • 196,855 hits

Mike sent me a link to this article about “Radical Honesty,” a budding movement which urges its practitioners to tell the truth — bluntly, and in any circumstance. (Warning: there are naughty words in the article.)

I’d like to think that such radical honesty could be tempered by concern for others’ feelings — that we can still tell the truth, but in friendlier ways, with less of the blunt violence displayed in the article. But am I just being a wimp?


  1. Mike says:

    This type of honesty seems too much on the side of just articulating all the chatter that passes through a person’s head. I’m not sure that’s what being honest is but the discussion did make me re-evaluate where, when and why we use editorial control over our thought processes. We don’t have as much control over our thoughts as we do our words. I don’t think waving off this helpful ability is the answer.


  2. stubaker says:

    Actually, the inventor of Radical Honesty said it should not be used in every circumstance. He lists the Anne Frank scenario (as well as a couple others) that a person can lie in.

    I keep thinking that we have an inner monologue for a reason (like, perhaps, as a survival mechanism), which makes me think that, ultimately, telling everyone exactly what you are thinking just doesn’t work.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: