[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Over-The-Rhine Digest V2 #804
> >I don't think you can assume there's only *one* truth.
> >
> >Everyone's looking for *a* truth - the truth that is true for them.
>
>
> Boy oh boy, didn't we just open up a can of worms. That kind of thinking
> just won't hold water. It's what we here call a self-defeatig absurdity.
That's what we here call a 'straw man argument'.
> There is indeed truth, and truth is objective, constant, and universal.
Kelvin's first assumption. Can we have a mathematical proof? Or at least
a side of the debate that doesn't rely on 'faith'?
> It doesn't come from the human mind, individual or objective, but exists
> before and outside of us. Finally, it doesn't cease to be truth just
> because some very educated people coose to play games with it and doubt
> its existence.
Second assumption. With an intangible concept like this, shouldn't we
define "truth" first?
> Example - Suppose you believe in gravity and I don't. If
> we both climbed our way up and then jumped off the top of the Empire
> State Building, said gravity would act on me just as much as it does on
> you, despite what I may or may not believe about it.
Comparing "higher truth" to the physical concept of gravity is like
comparing apples and Spiderman comics.
HTH, HAND!
--
chris.emery at ecoutlook_com
NP: Infectious Grooves _Groove Family Psycho_