|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:11 am
This has absolutely nothign to do with asexuality. It is more philosophical (or something like that) than anything else.
Think about it, all opposites in this world are relative. Light/Dark, High/Low, Ugly/Pretty, etc... The interesting thing is that there is one pair of opposites that defies this relative trend. It is Truth/Error. truth is not relative, because 2+2 will always equal 4. Eroor, on the other hand can be an infinte number of other things such as 3, 5, or 6. Truth/Eroor aren't subjective. They are written in stone. Just something for you guys to think about for a bit.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 8:47 am
It's not always definite.
Take religion for example.
One person may claim their religion is the truth, and believe it too. Whereas another may believe a completely different thing is the truth. Neither are wrong in their own opinion, but they are in the others'.
And if you're going to talk to me about proof, stop right there.
Nothing can ever be proven completely. There's always room for error, human or otherwise.
We used to think the world was square, for one.
In maths though, you may have a point. Except when it comes to things like irrational numbers...How do we know they don't repeat after, say, one million digits?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 9:44 am
Yes it is. I am not speaking of opinion. One of those people is right, and the other, wrong. That's that. Either that or they are both wrong, but there can be no plurality of truth. I am by no mean bigoted towards religion. I am tolerant of other religions. I use tolerant in the old way it was meant. Tolerance of other religions originally was accepting another's to practice whatever belief they felt inclined to, which is the freedom of religion. Nowehere in any part of the constitution call for tolerance as it is now interperted. Tolerance nowadays means that everyone must accept every religion as truth. How so? Is that not against nearly every religion in existence to do so? There is no more than one truth in every matter, and every religion recognizes that by the belief that they have found it. I respect their right to believe what they wish, but that does not mean that I agree with it. If I agreed with it, would I not get up and start to follow that religion as well?
I was speakig more in terms of mathematics. Umm... The very nature and definition of an irratinal number means that it goes on forever without repeating. Pi and e are definite values that happen to be infinite. Don't go into imaginary numbers, because they, in all reality, don't exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 9:45 am
You have to be careful about truth because what some people claim is the truth clearly is not. Too many people portray opinion as truth and that is not a good thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 9:49 am
Oh, that is far too true. I know. That is just their ignorance showing, though. Either that or naivety, in which case they shouldn't be aparding anything in that matter around as truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 9:57 am
I think what you're saying is that something cannot be "more true" than something else, right? Either it's true or it's false, with no degrees in between.
I guess the point is not to argue truth, because Yoder is using it only in the sense of when things are indeed guaranteed to either be true or false.
Something can be closer to the truth than something else (2+2=5 is closer to the truth than 2+2=827), but even in that case, they are both still false, and thus still all the way on that end of the spectrum.
I think "subjective" was a misleading word to pick, because it doesn't quite work here (for example, black/white is not subjective either, but there can still be varying degrees of gray in between).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 12:04 pm
himitsudane I think what you're saying is that something cannot be "more true" than something else, right? Either it's true or it's false, with no degrees in between. I guess the point is not to argue truth, because Yoder is using it only in the sense of when things are indeed guaranteed to either be true or false. Something can be closer to the truth than something else (2+2=5 is closer to the truth than 2+2=827), but even in that case, they are both still false, and thus still all the way on that end of the spectrum. I think "subjective" was a misleading word to pick, because it doesn't quite work here (for example, black/white is not subjective either, but there can still be varying degrees of gray in between). That is eaxctly what I am speaking of. Also, Truth is one thing, with absolutely no variation. While Error is anything else, and can vary to an infinite number of ways. Hmm... I guess I could've used a better word, instead of subjective. I just really couldn't think of any. Maybe opinionated or variable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:10 pm
Truth and Error are also relative because of the fact that humans are by nature endowed of opinions, whether they're outspoken about them or not. What I consider to be error is different from others. Also, I'd say the opposites aren't Truth/Error but Truth/Lies. But that's even more subjective, because on some level anything can be argued.
Sure, in the case of 2+2, it will always equal four, unless our mathematical system changes or they use different calculator settings. But, for instance, many people take the existance of God as an absolute truth, while others believe that something that cannot be proven (such as God) cannot possibly exist. This is an extreme example, but it's important and true.
Also, if someone is informed incorrectly of something (say someone was told that 2+2 = 3), to them, it is truth, but to everyone else it isn't. You tend to believe what you know.
That's my two cents. Or more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
