How to differentiate between intellectual dishonesty and ignorance/ misinterpretation

[Thought Art]

I recently saw Leo's post about Pragar U's views on whether Hitler was left or right.

Leo called this man and other right wingers who would make this claim "intellectually dishonest" But, I wonder if this is true, or if he is just ignorant and making conclusions based on the name. Is he actually dishonest? Or ignorant, or discordant in his thinking? I am wondering how we make this distinction because I think it's important. The problem is, in this mans mind he may be both dishonest, ignorant, and ignorant of his dishonesty in the construction of various aspects of his world view as well as ignorant of his ignorance or bias. This is complicated. So, is it an intentional dishonesty? Or, an ignorant dishonesty? Or, is it a honest wrong, or honest ignorance, or honest misunderstanding? 

We definitely live in a epistemic nightmare. Somehow I grasped this as a kid listening to Arcade Fire's album Neon Bible.... "A vial of hope and a vial of pain, in the light they both looked the same.... Oh God will I look at you now.. oh you lost it and you don't know how.. in the light of a gold calf.. Oh God I had to laugh..." and other songs and lyrics. Anyway, I digress. I find it at times disheartening the epistemic and metaphysical blunders of myself and others and realizing the bottlenecking issue of it's correction. It may have to happen through generations but.. Can it ever be resolved?

I am wondering what the forum and Leo thinks of this.

 

Thank you,

TA

Edited August 30 by Thought Art

[Staples]

By default it's ignorance.

Dishonesty requires one to be aware of their bullshitery, and then continue to do it because they will not give up the profit it brings.

And of course there are degrees of awareness of one's own bullshit.

Edited August 30 by Staples

[Ajax]

To differentiate anything, first you must find the right definition for it. If you can't define it, you won't know what it is or have a misunderstanding right?

Here is a definition I found on the website "shaneshow.com" I have no idea what that site is about, but it came up on a search for "intellectual dishonesty" and it's a pretty good definition.

 

Quote

Intellectual Honesty is about having high standards for the truth.

 

It’s not just about not lying; it’s about stating the truth when you know it, hiding nothing, twisting nothing, leaving nothing out.

Intellectual dishonesty, on the other hand, is a sort of blanket term for being dishonest without necessarily straight out lying. It’s the failure to apply high standards for truth.

As for ignorance: From the 1913 Webster's dictionary.

Quote

1. The condition of being ignorant; the want of knowledge in general, or in relation to a particular subject; the state of being uneducated or uninformed.

Ignorance is the curse of God,
Knowledge the wing wherewith we fly to heaven.

Shak.

2. (Theol.) A willful neglect or refusal to acquire knowledge which one may acquire and it is his duty to have. Book of Common Prayer.

My personal definition of ignorance is not know... as in someone does not know what they are talking about. 

Anyway, to compare Hitler to left and right is already an act of idiocy because his view's are not alignment of current opinions on "Left or Right."   

His beliefs was more in alignment of "everything I say is right and if you don't agree or obey, you are dead meat." As with a psychopath, his opinions would often contradict itself and change for the sake of convenience... But that it's self is just my opinion... not fact. lol

[Leo Gura]

Technically I don't think Prager is lying. He's just deeply bought into a right-wing fantasy.

But I still think it is fair to call Prager intellectually dishonest in that his intellect is so infested with bias that he cannot be bothered to read a Wikipedia page on Hitler.

But if I wanted to be more charitable and rigorous I should change the term to self-deceived.

Edited August 30 by Leo Gura

[Lyubov]

 

you’re asking “how do you tell the difference between someone who is telling/believing lies vs someone who is ignorant (a person who does not know what they believe is a lie / lacks perspective)?”

Well it’s hard to say. All we can go by is what we know to be true at any moment and accept the uncertainty of life and that we live in the unknown. If you had proof someone is lying, would you believe they are telling the truth the next time?

all we can do is make decisions in the present with what information we have and take responsibility for our beliefs. 

you could be lying right now to us all, writing this thread here, with already an answer in mind and knowing good and well you have no intention to ever read any of our replies and you started this thread not because you wanted an answer but because you purposefully wanted to waste our time. I don’t have any certainty this isn’t untrue of your intention. But I have good will and reply assuming you genuinely are honest and curious and are seeking answers for your questions.

its the same for everything else. It’s about you being honest and open to dialogue, I personally wouldn’t even focus my mind on if someone else is being honest or not. 

What do you believe? Why do you believe it? Just ask yourself these two questions anytime there is a lack of clarity in YOUR life. 

When it comes to pragar a lot of what he says is his belief system and his values and his perspective. You do not agree with them. Only he knows if he is lying and being dishonest. To him they are what he wants to believe and he is not right or wrong for believing it and it’s up to him to find out what’s true. 

Edited August 30 by Lyubov

[UnbornTao]

Are you operating in accordance to what you currently estimate to be as "rock-bottom" true as possible in your own experience, or do you, by contrast, purposely ignore, withhold, embellish, that awareness?

Then, the direction to go is deepening that recognition of whatever is the case at any level in whatever domain we are dealing with.

Edited August 30 by UnbornTao

[Husseinisdoingfine]

Hitler was objectively right wing as he was a big fan of industry, for whom financed his movement. He was definitely not pro labor as he had abolished the trade unions. 

https://apwu.org/news/magazine-labor-history/notorious-part-history-may-1933-dissolution-labor-unions-nazifascist

[Thought Art]

@Leo Gura fair 

[Carl-Richard]

"Dishonest" should be reserved for people like Andrew Tate.