|
Post by Always on Jun 16, 2008 13:32:24 GMT 10
I want the bests from other forums to make their presence with this basic argument which may rise into an intensely debated one
|
|
|
Post by linsi on Jun 16, 2008 14:11:54 GMT 10
I want the bests from other forums to make their presence with this basic argument which may rise into an intensely debated one For me it is absolute!
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Jun 17, 2008 1:11:03 GMT 10
Truth is Relative.
For example, some Christians believe that anyone who isn't a Christian is not "saved" and will therefore go to hell. Other religions may believe that Christianity is "wrong" and God will only favour, say, Jews or Muslims or whoever. Yet other people are atheist, believing in no higher power at all.
For example, how do we know the sky is really blue? Everyone says it's blue. Of course, the consensus of science is that it is not really blue at all, since the atmosphere is colourless.
Admitting that this is an article which i totally agree.
|
|
|
Post by Always on Jun 18, 2008 19:34:04 GMT 10
Whatever is true for you may not be true for me.
Absolute truth does not change; relative truth change from time to time and person to person. Most relativists like you claim (as dictated in your pos) that truth is somewhat dependent on the person making the statement. If Christians says, "Ye are gods", it means that we have the image of God. If dios Eli Soriano or mga Mormons say it, he is speaking of his hope to be the deity of his own planet. If a pantheist says it, he means that humans are God.
What about, "I feel sick"? Guess what: personal pronouns don't even transfer as well as verb tenses. It does not matter kung parehong salita ang ginamit; kahit iba-iba pang mga tao ang nagsabi nito, but they take on different meaning. Are these statements true for everyone? YES, it is true that the person called "I" in the sentence did feel sick at that time and that must be acknoledged as true by everyone (though we have to take "I's" word about how he felt). Tulad din yan ng mga katagang Ye are gods kung ano ang sabi ng mga taong nagpapakahulugan nito, even though it will never be true for anyone, anytime (even if they changed their views later).
Siguro, akala ninyo na I am agreeing sa mga relativists ano that Truth is Relative? Not quite. I am just setting up scenarios of relativism bago ko ipapasok ang absolutism. Mahaba-haba ang topic na ito at d basta post lang ng post Thus, how many ways of view that truth is relative could be undestood? Anyone, before I continue?
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Jun 20, 2008 1:18:34 GMT 10
Assuming the existence of an absolute truth is the basis for many things in the world. The justice system, for example, is in theory based on the idea that something really only happened one way. But when it comes right down to a court case, usually the outcome is decided less by what "really" happened than by which lawyer was most convincing. Truth often falls by the wayside.
This would be a real shame - assuming, of course, that truth really does exist. But how can we be sure? Every human being sees the world through a unique set of eyes that we call perception. This perception is limited by selectivity and coloured by an entire history of preconceived notions. It would be impossible to find a single person capable of being entirely objective about everything.
To those who believe in God or in a higher power, the notion of truth is based on His (or Her) ultimate objectivity. God observes from a distance, sees all, knows all, and is the ultimate dispenser of justice. The question of God however is a matter of faith more than anything else.
Yes this is a copy pasted article, sending a similar message from me which does not nee further explanations.
Going to that feeling of sickness. People vary in how they feel pain, and that is relative.
|
|
|
Post by Always on Jun 25, 2008 14:54:14 GMT 10
Well, the article you pasted only put a hold on the first premise I posted as one way of viewing that Truth is Relative But what about time as a factor?
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Jul 1, 2008 15:23:35 GMT 10
And what about senses as factors?
|
|
|
Post by Always on Jul 4, 2008 23:29:17 GMT 10
Senses you say? 8-)That was what you have copied and pasted in the first place. I always understand on why you are buying time but P7 readers must know. So, what about time as a factor?
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Jul 10, 2008 20:43:26 GMT 10
Talking about truth with regards to time is different from talking about it with regards to senses is relative.
What is painful to one is not to another. What is right to one is wrong to another.
where is truth now?
|
|
|
Post by Always on Jul 12, 2008 2:03:39 GMT 10
"What is painful to one is not to another. What is right to one is wrong to another."
where is truth now?
Huh? Don't tell me you do not know that time is also a factor of what truth is all about. A true relativist knows that in order for truth to be relative is for it to be incorporated with time and space.
So show us that truth is relative basing from time and space
Lastly, what is painful to a victim is not to a killer and what is right to a killer is wrong to a victim
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Jul 17, 2008 5:06:53 GMT 10
individually perceived truths are relative, but the truth is the truth and is not relative, so truth both is and isn't relative depending on whether you mean it is relative to the individuals understanding and grasping of some speculated truth, or if it is relative to the effective existence of the individual.
although even a speculated truth which is not true has effects on the individual who grasps at it and believs it because in turn it manipulates his/her way of thinking, of course thoughts are precursors to actions, and so our actions will be influenced by what we believe at that particular time. so in turn it has truthfully deceived the owner of those thoughts and actions, so in this way it is possible to consider that it is a truth but not not a true truth ....
This holds true with time and space
The Relative Truth is the perception of reality as it exists on this Earth. So named because social conditions, human wisdom, lifestyles and human achievements are constantly in a state of flux. Growing an attachment to any Relative Truth is a cause of suffering.
|
|
|
Post by Always on Jul 17, 2008 10:07:20 GMT 10
You still did not show proof on how time and space as a factor. And you just showed (again) one's perception of things as is with your prior postings.
This is the very reason why you are stuck in your belief of 'truth' being relative.
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Jul 23, 2008 2:58:43 GMT 10
If you insist about time and space and i insist about senses and perception therefore there is a mid-line of relativisim and absolutism about truth and none can claim it.
|
|
|
Post by Always on Jul 23, 2008 11:05:34 GMT 10
Then why did you try so hard to explain such in your post as if it was for time and space? ;D
Before I go into details about Time, I would like to take a closer look into your truth as relative through one's perspective. In this case, your truth is only perspectival.
MEANING: Perspectival means the capacity to view things in their relative importance or an urge you maintain your own perspective.
As in your stance, many people will tell you that all truth is really true from a certain way of seeing things or perspective. And to support this position let me give an story of six blind men and an elephant. Here it goes: One blind man feeling only the trunk, thought that it was a snake. Another discovered only the ears and concluded that it was a fan. The one who came across the body said it was a wall, and after finding a leg, another it was a tree. Another holding the tail declared it was a rope. Finally, the last blind man felt a pointed tusk and informed them that it was a spear. Well, that is the end of my li'l story
LESSON LEARNED: To some, this proves that what you think is true is only a matter of your perspective of things. But it should be pointed out, though, that all men were wrong. WHY?
Because NONE of their conclusions were true, so this illustration says nothing about truths. There really was an objective truth that all of them failed to discover. Also, the statement, "All truth is perspectival," is ether absolute statement or a perspectival one. If it is absolute, then not all truth are perspectival. If it is perspectival, then there is no reason to think that it is absolutely true--it is only one perspective. It does not succeed either way. So what is the Absolute Truth in this case? That all men touched an Elephant!
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Aug 2, 2008 4:55:57 GMT 10
You may have a point, if this is the case then there is relative truth and absolute truth.
|
|
|
Post by Always on Aug 2, 2008 8:43:48 GMT 10
HallEluJah! It is not my expression of praise but of thanks. And since you are now ENLIGHTENED, it is about time to explain what is Truth in relation to "time" in its simplest form.
For example:
"ERAP is President," when said in 2000 is true and it always will be true. At no time will it cease to be true that Joseph Ejercito Estrada was president in 2000. If someone uses the same words in 2008, then he is making a new and different truth claim, because the present tense is now eight years removed from the context of other statement.
That being said, the spatial and temporal context of statements in relation to time is an inherent part of the context which determines the meaning of that assertion. However, if "ERAP is President" (said in 2000) is always true for everyone everywhere, then it is an absolute truth. The perspective of the speaker is understood as part of the context. It is an absolute truth .
|
|