Position:Home>Philosophy> Would you agree that, in a social context, the most despicable form of deception
Question: Would you agree that, in a social context, the most despicable form of deception is obfuscation!?
Particularly if you notice!? I mean, a liar gives you a lie!. A hypocrite tells you one thing and believes in another!. An obfuscator posing as learned and knowledgeable, tells you meaningless stuff, that supposedly you do not understand, as a confidence to you, his big friend, worthy of such wisdom!.
I have seen this happen many times, not always with me, particularly in what concerns Art (of which no one knows nothing about except the fat check book)!. Someone tries to express an honest feeling and gets the "after postmodern deconstruction, this work is banal!." Most people just think "three words I do not understand, in a single sentence," and take the Japanese attitude towards embarrassment!. But then you do know the words, and further more you understand that long words organized that way do not make any sense!. There's even a program in the Internet that automatically outputs Dadaist prose, sounding utterly impressive but completely devoid of meaning!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
If it bothers you, fight fire with fire, or say "I disagree," and list your reasons!. As for art, I like to examine it, try to figure out if the artist is giving substance to a thought, idea or emotion!. Then I look at it to see if it's pleasing to my eye!. I already know if I have enough skill to do the same, and if I don't, or if I would never have had such an idea, then I usually like it more!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Indeed yes information of little relevant or inconsequential or distracting the focal point to another point with intent to mislead in indeed heinously despicable, contemptible and lots of other equally horrid words I cannot recall at this moment in time !.!.!.
?!.
One’s sense of honour propriety is then the ignoble’s greatest weapon and strength!. God serves all, as does evil!. Thereby the world remains, neither destroyed or created, merely existing!. Extracting the one originator avails not if the mission remains incomplete!. No mission at hand if both detractors and supporters are appeased, not cured or destroyed, simply appeased to be roused again another day!.
Then we see about us so many innocents suffering and struggling, did not the saints then gladly suffer their defeat as humanity suffers!. And thus man remains but suffering in varying degrees!.
At whose door we lodge complaint!. I would not subject God Warrior Lord or Soldier to such a cause!. Similarly you and I would not evoke a God in which we had limited or little control!. We bear our cross then until the destined time when we are released from this cycle!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
It is only "despicable" in honest contexts!. What if you are a kidnap victim using obfuscation against your kidnapper!?
But yeah, as you describe it, I'd call it despicable!. But Random House Dictionary calls it
"1!. to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy!.
2!. to make obscure or unclear: to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information!."
That is how you would use it against an enemy, such as a kidnapper, or a political enemy!.
I don't see "posing as learned" in that!. You may not be wrong, but I looked it up merely because I never heard it used the way you use it!.Www@QuestionHome@Com