6 Answers
Leave a Reply
You must Register - Login to add an answer.
Login – Register
Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
It seems to me that these concepts should not be opposed to each other.
The question potentially contains the meaning of ” it is better out of compassion to keep silent about the truth.”
But it is also possible, through compassion, to gently and gradually prepare a person to accept the truth.
Depends on the situation and the speaker's abilities, of course. You can express the truth in such a way that, for all its penetrating power, it will not destroy a person, but will give him strength.
In any case, you should know one thing: compassion should not lead to lies.
Some people are more useful / profitable truth, other people are more useful / profitable compassion.
Ideally, you need to skillfully combine both truth and compassion – this is optimal for everyone.
These nouns can only be matched when defining the context. Which is better, knowledge or love? The answer may be different and will depend on your subjective worldview.
Compassion is not a quality. It is the law of laws, eternal harmony.
A person who is deluded (who does not know the truth) can be quite a moral, compassionate person. Getting rid of ignorance ( knowledge of the truth) with the possession of a moral principle is a profitable business, since a moral person lives in the truth.
An immoral person who has the truth is dangerous both for himself and for others. Again, as you can see, the answer dictates the context in which these nouns are compared.
Personally, I choose compassion.
There is also an esoteric reading of the situation. The truth is in us, in our Ego. Getting through to him is not so easy. The average person has no relationship with it. However, spiritual qualities, among which compassion is one of the first, purify a person, purify his spiritual channel, through which only you can hear your Ego. If a person hears it, then he knows the truth.
There is truth and there is truth. The truth is considered to be what the majority believes, and the truth may not be known to anyone at all. Compassion always brings people the truth, that is, it gradually opens their eyes to the real world. This process can be very painful for people, but the bearer of truth suffers even more, which is why it is called compassion.
Such “questioning” is possible only in an abstract form (when it comes to speculative “concepts” that are not related to each other).
If we first try to investigate how “truth” and “compassion” are related (real, not “conceptual”), then the question disappears by itself (because the real true and compassionate relations are the consequences of the same cause – love).
It is only necessary to turn to a specific situation (any, any life example) as well, the answer immediately becomes visible in the form of a good choice (what to do?).
Such a “question” in practice usually arises when you have to choose between ” telling the person the truth “(at the risk of “harming” him, offending, etc.) or leaving him in the dark when there is a clear danger of his position for himself and/or other people.
Examples:
I don't see any difficulties in choosing in any of these cases (both the moral and the truth point to the same answer – what should be done). Only a very “ideological” person can see an “alternative” here (but it is really different, because he needs to make a choice between his “ideality” and “reality”, and not between “compassion” and” truth”, as such a person seems to think, because he confuses his” idea “with”truth”).