Poem Analysis: Deception With Words

Philosophy Bites The podcast of my choice expounds on the topic “Deception with Words” that essentially tends to specifically dwell on the two concepts of “lying” and “deception” as the grand indicators of deception. The two subjects intrinsically gravitate to the construct of deception as a significant aspect of on-on-one engagement that betrays the norms of conversation and ruins the credibility of the “informant” position that parties in the conversation assume. Deception is such a common feature in day to day conversation even though according to Jonathan Webber, the weight of such a deception is the issue of great concern. By assuming this line of though, deception with words in this case may be injurious or benign depending on weight …show more content…
Rather my pick of the podcast from the many was impelled by the topic in question, Deception with Words. Life in general has a vested interest in deception that has dotted the capitalistic democracy theme that current nationalism harbors. The freedoms and liberties of being the self, free from coercion or governmental herding has brooded a school of marketing and citizenship alike that seems to embrace deception in many forms that may assume a benign or malignant nature. However am more interested in deception of words used in the field of marketing that exploits the uncertainty of implicature that the guest calls on. To boost sales, marketers tend to culture wording styles that would create a subtle level of thought confusion that would leave potential buyers convinced even though from the “implied” side of the wording and not the “literal” side. Many a times, deception is not exclusive, but the wording may elucidate a sense of lies just to guarantee a sale. Whether the consumer base is misled or whether they misled themselves by the implicature gateway is such an interesting occurrence that I would wish to comprehend from the discussion …show more content…
As Webber explicates, misleading can be corrected while lying may not. Since literal exchanges are more prevalent in life than intentions to lead, the expense that literal betrayal holds is far more costly than misleading. On the other hand, society in more general terms, has consented to tagging a grave taboo on lying. The moral weight is therefore more significant behind the truth/lie property than it is in the lead/mislead property. From my second interest, it baffles me how wording and sentence construction can be manipulated from a single bundle of words and end in at receivers ' station with lies and truths as options. I regard this to be epitome of deception in the sense that truth and lies crisscross with no clear membrane to make the distinction. In this case, the conversing/speaking party seems to be testing Webber 's principle of best available answer. When inquiring from another party for instance, they harbor the moral and linguistic duty to provide a best possible answer. However a “brush” answer would give numerous options and appear deceptive as we suppose. This is indeed the currency in marketing and