What is the difference between lying and being mistaken? To be mistaken is to err because of ignorance, and to lie, is willfully repeating something you do not believe is true. So how can a person willfully repeat something to themselves that they know is not true? Is it even possible?
I have been told that the answer can only be either yes, or no. But maybe there is a middle ground. Because in order for one to lie to oneself, you can only do so in ignorance that you truly are lying to yourself: which looks like ‘mistaken’. There is a difference though, because of what you are willfully ignoring of what you can know.
Let’s say that you are told that your significant other is cheating on you. You choose not to believe it. You find evidence in the form of a love letter; your significant other informs you that it is an old letter from a past lover. Many in this situation have found it possible to convince themselves it is not true. Because they cannot, will not; accept the truth for the pain of it. As long as the verification does not come from the significant other, people have found a way to tell themselves it isn’t true. When they have access to the evidence they need to prove otherwise: It is a willful deceit—a lie. But it can only be maintained as long as there is no definite proof ‘from the horse’s mouth’. And such a person will not examine evidence to ‘prove’ the lie wrong, because they could not handle the truth, and are too afraid of what they would find. So they find workarounds to remain ignorant enough to hold on to the lie.
The path to lying to oneself then must begin with ignoring evidence. Indeed, even warping evidence if necessary to maintain the façade we have built our lives on. When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change. And so, be careful little eyes what you see, be careful little ears what you hear, because knowledge cannot be unlearned, it can only be ‘adjusted’ by the viewer to support their belief system with disregard for any other truth than the first decision of what is true to measure truth against.
Let me try to put it another way: if you have accepted one truth that Jesus is the son of God, as an ultimate truth, it is now impossible for you to truly entertain any idea’s that go against that truth. So when a paper titled ‘Jesus is not the son of God, and why I know he isn’t’ becomes available, many a person will not read it, because it does not affirm their belief it is true. That individual is lying to themselves. A person who believed such honestly, would not refuse to read it, or even fear reading it, because they believe the truth honestly, and would probably read it just to tear apart the paper as false and so then strengthen their faith, and have belittled a liar.
The evidence of a person lying to themselves is evident in what they will refuse to examine at all costs. You can beg, you can plead, you can offer money, or reward, but an individual that is lying to themselves will not examine any evidence that will potentially destroy the lie. They do this without even really being aware of doing it, but in the back of their mind they know. They are consciously aware that whatever it is they are lying to themselves about must not be a lie. And the only way to protect that is willful ignorance.
Arguments for or against, anyone?