From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: What is truth? Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 13:32:55 -0600
----- Original Message ----- From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 12:13 PM Subject: Re: What is truth?
> > > > >From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: What is truth? > >Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 09:36:28 -0600 > > > >As far as I can tell, my point wasn't communicated to you. > > Far be it for me to read between the lines. I shall endeavor not to in the > future. Keep in mind that I am human though, and prone to imperfection.
I was trying very hard to use neutral language. I was noting that what you wrote back as my ideas did not reflect my actual ideas....and allowed all possibilities for the source of the miscommunication, including my own writing.
Fair enough.
> >Proof is > >virtually impossible to come by without postulates being agreed upon > >beforehand. So, there is no way to prove much of anything to a full true > >skeptic. All I know without doubt is that I perceive, since I have an > >awareness of perception and a reflective self awareness of the perceiving. > >Everything else takes at least some faith. > > > Faith. Such a fickle word isn't it?
> As for your thoughts on proof, well I couldn't agree more. The problem > however lies within the realm of faith. Instead of people unanimously > agreeing upon what would seem to be apparent truths, they revert back to > faith. And I find that quite perplexing.
What makes the truths apparent but a shared faith?
Shared agreement. And more to the point, shared agreement based upon collectively shared agreements on truth.
Let me bring up again, a shared faith statement from the foundation of the US.
"We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
These are apparent truths that you argue against.
Yes and no. I mean there is an element of give & take in virtually anything.
That all men are created equal (Women also included....just to be politically correct) is something that I agree with, yet don't. As I have said, nothing in this life is black & white to such a degree that one can just make a blind stand behind some issue. But lets look at that statement.
First of all, I think that it is our prerogative as the dominant species on this planet, to create an ideological society however we see fit. However, the ideology should stem not from spoon-fed religious beliefs, nor from archaic political practices, but from our own social and (feel free to insert your own words here ___________) needs.
That being said, I tend to agree with the fundamental ideas presented in this statement:
"We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
I have absolutely no problem with the premise of this statement, nor with the context. I accept and understand the time period as well as the mentality of that time, therefore rendering the true meaning of those words, timeless.
Right about now, I assume someone reading this is expecting me to dive head-first into the anti-religion position that is left wide open. I think not. Instead, I intend to dive head-first into the fundamentals of Dan's argument. Fundamentals, which walk directly into the gaping maw of my own argument.
You see Dan, I argue against the predisposition of ideological thinking. In this particular context, religious beliefs. Or more accurately, thinking, which has it's roots in religious beliefs, whether one will admit it or not.
Now. I have stated quite clearly that I agree with the fundamental ideas presented in the above "statement". I recognize, and see through the veil of religious thinking on that score. And really, when you think about it, that's the cornerstone of my entire argument. Of course I disagree with the religious overtones presented, but that does not cloud the premise of those words. Yet you come at me, standing firmly behind those overtones, as if they hold some enlightened, profound truth. Whereas they are just words(albeit fancied up with certain religious overtones which reflect the time period), which clarify ideas, that are crucial to running the type of society that we run.
So you see, I argue not against "apparent truths". But rather the foundations of the thinking, that most people hold to be apparant truths.
And for the record, I don't think that it's a "shared faith statement". And I'm suprised that you do. Perhaps at the time that it was written, it was. Perhaps not. In any case, the ideals (HUMAN ideals) presented are quite blatant.
From your other posts you appear to put a lot of faith in your own sense of what is true. That's OK, but why should I have more faith in your sense than in my own, or in the writings of people I respect?
Dan M.
Well, you shouldn't. You should seek truth. Unless of course you choose to live your life on the basis of blind faith. Which in fine. That would be your own personal choice. Obviously it's not a choice of mine.<lol>
As for my own sense "what is true", well I tend to think that it is based on what actually is true. I just draw logical conclusions to abstract concepts, and apply them to everyday thinking.
-Travis "you get what you pay for, and freedom's real high priced" Edmunds
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
