Night-Time Analysis

2070 Words 9 Pages
Culturally the truth value of honesty has changed from history compared to this century. Philoctetes a 12th century story showed the value of honesty in different way than the 21st century of the curious incident of the dog in the night-time. Both story showed characters who understand the true value of honesty different. Both story showed a different perspective of knowing how to tell the truth and when to tell the truth as of for Philoctetes the main character Neoptolemus believed it shows always be stated even if it meant using force to have the result as long as the truth sailed. While in the curious incident of the dog in the night-time the father and many other characters believe, it was protective not to tell Christopher the truth because …show more content…
The decision to either tell a friend the truth and learn the way they supposed to or to not tell them at all to protect them is always a hard decision to make due to the confusions involved and the effect it might have on the person if they know or if they don't. The lies are bad to tell but sometime are beneficial to the way the person value them self. The use of constructivism is to tell someone the truth by praising the things they did well but at the same time telling them the things they need to work on. Constructivism give honesty a different shape that this generation used to easily express the opinion in a less harsh way, in the article constructive criticism and social lies: a developmental sequence for understanding honesty and kindness in social interactions written by Fischer Kurt, Susie Lamborn, and Sarah Pipp, the article explains how this generation express honesty to help each other improve but instead of saying it harsh they say it through constructive criticism. The article pointed out how this generation values of being loyal to one another and being honorable make them lie to protect each other …show more content…
People in this generation tend to be honest when under demand or forced. Konsan, David stated in the article The Two Faces of Parrhêsia* Free speech and Self-Expression in Ancient Greece, " what I am suggesting, then, is that Parrhêsia is perhaps better conceived as a license to express one’s views, whatever the context. An Athenian citizen felt that he could speak up and did not have to defer to superiors, whether in a spirit of flattery or as an especially bold display of honesty under pressure: this was not a right guaranteed by law, or by a constitution, but an expectation, a feature of social life” (Konsan 4). The author viewed on honesty is that people tend to tell the truth more often when under pressure and is expect in social matter. Disagreeing with Konsan people still lie under pressure and sometimes motivated to lie because of pressure and social groups and the ideal view of honesty is not the same for everybody. The way honesty is viewed will always be different people to people and culture to

Related Documents