/lit/ - Literature

Here is the argument from the podcast.

A woman cheats on her husband. You then ask her "did you or did you not cheat on your husband?" The only response she can give is "yes", answering "no" would be false.

Then you find out her husband had cheated himself, and abused her for years on end. Now her response ("yes") is no longer true.

And that is because you can't embed an ethics framework into the definition of word "cheating", and using a simple definition of word is useless in determining truth.

So >>9227457 you have it backward. His argument is that you can't define true or false without this pragmatic approach, or you'll end up with inaccurate statements like "you slept with a man who is not your husband therefore you cheated".