Vol. 44 No. 2 (2024)
Critical Notes

The Nature of Lying: On Mentiras y engaños, by Tobies Grimaltos and Sergi Rosell

PDF (Español (España))
  • Jesús Navarro
Jesús Navarro
Universidad de Sevilla, España
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36446/af.e972

Published 2024-11-08

Keywords

  • Mentira,
  • Conocimiento,
  • Engaño,
  • Aserción,
  • Intención
  • Lies,
  • Deception,
  • Assertion,
  • Intention,
  • Knowledge
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Abstract

Faced with the impossibility of reaching any reductive analysis of the concept of lying, Tobies Grimaltos and Sergi Rosell have proposed a conception thereof that is based on its paradigmatic conditions. Among those conditions, the one of deceiving the listener is prominent. The relationship between lying and deceiving would be crucial in order to understand the paradigmatic cases of the concept, even if merely contingent — a thesis with important implications for its moral assessment. I present their proposal here and advance three objections to it. First: that any theory of lying should be built on a theory of assertion, which already delimits what is properly said in parasitic uses of language (such as metaphor or irony). Second: that we should distinguish the uses of lying from its constituent aspects, among which the intention to lie, not the one to deceive, stands out. And third: that a paradigmatic model of lying should assume an epistemic condition, and not merely a doxastic one, according to which lying is, paradigmatically, saying something that one  knows to be false.

PDF (Español (España))

References

  1. Benton, M. A. (2019). Lying, belief, and knowledge. En J. Meibauer (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of lying (pp. 120-133). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198736578.001.0001
  2. Bieber, F., & Viehoff, J. (2023). A paradigm-based explanation of trust. Synthese, 201(2), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-03993-4
  3. Brown, J., & Cappelen, H. (Eds.) (2011). Assertion: New philosophical essays. Oxford University Press.
  4. Craig, E. (1999). Knowledge and the state of nature. Oxford University Press.
  5. Frankfurt, H. G. (2008). On bullshit: Sobre la manipulación de la verdad. Paidós.
  6. Frápolli, M. J. (2023). The priority of propositions: A pragmatist philosophy of logic. Springer International Publishing.
  7. Fricker, M. (2016). What’s the point of blame? A paradigm based explanation: Noûs, 50(1), 165-183. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12067
  8. Grimaltos, T., & Rosell, S. (2021). Mentiras y engaños: Una investigación filosófica. Cátedra.
  9. Hacker, P. M. S. (1990). Wittgenstein: Meaning and mind. Basil Blackwell.
  10. Hawthorne, J., & Stanley, J. (2008). Knowledge and action. The Journal of Philosophy, 105(10), 571-590. https://doi.org/10.5840/jphil20081051022
  11. Holguín, B. (2021). Lying and knowing. Synthese, 198(6), 5351-5371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02407-2
  12. Marsili, N. (2022). Lying: Knowledge or belief? Philosophical Studies, 179, 1445–1460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-021-01713-1
  13. McDowell, J. (1988). Criteria, defeasibility and knowledge. En J. Dancy (Ed.), Perceptual knowledge (pp. 209-219). Oxford University Press.
  14. Navarro, J. (2010). Speech acts, criteria and intentions. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 6(1), 145-170. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10016-010-0008-8
  15. Queloz, M. (2021). The practical origins of ideas: Genealogy as conceptual reverse-engineering. Oxford University Press.
  16. Siegler, F. A. (1966). Lying. American Philosophical Quarterly, 3(2), 128-136. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20009199
  17. Turri, J. (2016). Knowledge and the norm of assertion: An essay in philosophical science. Open Book Publishers. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1bpmb9w
  18. Williamson, T. (1996). Knowing and asserting. Philosophical Review, 105(4), 489-523. https://doi.org/10.2307/2998423
  19. Williamson, T. (2002). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford University Press.