chaz wyman wrote:
Let's face it the whole thread is based on an inappropriate question.
Such as "why are we here?"; " what colour is the wind?"; "what is the sound of blue?"; "When was the future?"
Why would we think that the idea "the truth" is meaningful or a thing that is capable of being seen.
Even if it is, what makes us think that there is something stopping us seeing a thing that might not be meaningful or capable of being seen?
I think more to the point: The result of the discussion of truth is evident of most discussion that has to do with true things. The discussion always leads to a compromise or a negotiation of truth, such that the truth is thus what a defined majority or consensus deems.
SOB-1: Incorrect, you speak of beliefs that men have claimed as truths, as though they are in fact.
What is this then ? What is this truth that 'they' establish? Say for example 'all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights...'. What truth is this?
SOB-1: That's elementary, the answer is easy: 'NO' man 'ACTUALLY KNOWS' the 'TRUTH' of 'EXISTENCE.'
L-2: I do.
SOB-2: No you don't, to say you do, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, not only that you don't, but if serious, that you have mental problems as well.
You merely believe and assert this as knowledge. To prove one knows, one would have to know how to create a universe, and then be capable, and then, do so. Or else one could not logically say that in fact they know.
L-2: Is the statement "all people are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights...'. False. Then? Or is it true?
SOB-2: Well the original,:
"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 these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
as Jefferson said, it's, "self-evident," such that what I said, obviously, in the crux of this evidentness, such that I see no need in the asking. And if you left out the referencing of "creator" as your hidden, ace in the hole, I see that creator is synonymous with "creation" in this case, which I see as accounting for both camps of thought, as it doesn't matter, whether this creation was intentional or by chance, as in both cases, constituents were required, and must come together for life to exist, and within this understanding, my point that no one currently knows, or can know, is born.
How did it come about?
SOB-1: The final acceptance of the truth of this lack of knowledge.
Or perhaps a most siginifcant question: from where did does it arise? From observation? From utility?
SOB-1: See Above!
Or the most operative: what relation do I have to this truth? Am I an object defined by a conflation of objects? Or am I that which establishes the conflation ?
SOB-1: What is this second (or more) object? To what fusion are you referring?
Is that which is contradictory, that is, reason that reaches contradiction, de facto false?
SOB-1: No, it's the 'reason,' that is false.