Quotes About Truth

can you tell when a politician is lying? When he moves his lips!

Lying is such a central characteristic of life that better understanding of it is relevant to almost all human affairs.

No discussion of facial signs of deceit would be complete without considering one of the most frequent of all the facial expressions—smiles. They are unique among the facial expressions. It takes but one muscle to show enjoyment, while most of the other emotions require the action of three to five muscles.

Misinterpreting is not the only route by which someone may believe his or her false account is true.

The behavioral clues in face, body, voice, and manner of speaking are not signs of lying per se. They may be signs of emotions that don't fit with what is being said. Or they may be signs that the suspect is thinking about what he is saying before he says it. They are flags marking areas which need to be explored.

Most often lies fail because some sign of an emotion being concealed leaks. The stronger the emotions involved in the lie, and the greater the number of different emotions, the more likely it is that the lie will be betrayed by some form of behavioral leakage.

when they were, in fact, lying. They were taken in by the false expressions and ignored the expressions that leaked the true feelings. When people lie, their most evident, easy-to-see expressions, which people pay most attention to, are often the false ones. The subtle signs

In the spider-web of facts, many a truth is strangled.

My truth" becomes opposed to, or destructive of, "your truth." To return to the image I already used: when we take the tropical bird of religious language and put it in a cage, it becomes a bird of prey.

And this power in their teaching had to do, first of all, with the content of what they taught – that is, with the way "what they said" made clear "what really is.

Jesus was such a powerful, "saving" Teacher because he was what he taught.

I believe I have discovered something that I suspect characterizes religious experience in whatever tradition or historical context: the more deeply one enters into the core experience that animates one's own tradition, the more broadly one is enabled and perhaps moved to enter into the experiences of other traditions. The more deeply one sinks into one's own religious truth, the more broadly one can appreciate and learn from other truths.

But if there is an ongoing, nagging disconnect between, on the one hand, what I can and must affirm to be true and good on the basis of my present "culturally conditioned" experience and, on the other hand, what "the Bible tells me is so," something has to give. Sometimes something has to give on both sides.

But if salvation is a matter of revealing or embodying the deepest and already existing truth about ourselves and the world – in Christian vocabulary, that we are already children of the Divine called to wake up to and live our oneness with the Spirit – then it is indeed possible that there be other teachers and revealers who have seen and taught other aspects of the Mystery of who we are.

Denial is often the first line of defense: refusing to accept that the bad news is true.

If truth is the main casualty in war, ambiguity is another.

We do not need a bodyguard of lies. We can afford to present ourselves in the totality of our acts.

A fib such as the above did nobody any harm, while a lie was deliberate, told to save yourself or to gain an unfair advantage.

All the joys—animal and human—of a free life are mine. I have escaped everything that is artificial, conventional, customary. I am entering into the truth, into nature.

Neuznávám žádnou jinou pravdu, kromÄ› pravdy umÄ›lecké lži.

Rhetoric and dialectics can't change what I have learned from observation and experience.

To give an estimate is to say something you don't know absolutely to be true, and therefore it is to tell a lie, something geeks find deeply painful.

At every period of history, people have believed things that were just ridiculous, and believed them so strongly that you risked ostracism or even violence by saying otherwise. If our own time were any different, that would be remarkable. As far as I can tell it isn't.

The moment historians examine the past they risk changing it, by selectively re-arranging events, consciously or not, according to the judgment(s) of posterity or their own baggage of values and prejudices.