"SpheresOfBalance"said:
You're incorrect, the truth exists, especially, without us, as humans distort the truth for their own selfish reasons.
Ok so I was playing a little with you SOB. One never knows until one puts it out there.
and yes, Chaz can be a little brazen.
So you counter pose knowledge with truth, and say that there is a truth and then there is human knowledge.
Ok sure, maybe there is. I was playing with you a little bit, partially because we must be careful in how we speak of things, because how we speak of things tends to convey the 'truth' of what we mean.
I attend your quote above. Sure, maybe there is a truth at some 'basis' of it all, but what does that really say, in saying it?
Once spoken in that way it immediatly lends itself to the philsophical-logical reduction which would deny the validity of the statement itself.
So what if there is a basic truth? What can I say about it? For every time I may say something about it I, in effect, deny myself and have in-effectualted the potential for that basic truth to exist.
If I say there is a basic truth, then I will be asked to show how it could be, and i am lead down a road of speculative metaphysical argument which relies upon faith based opinions, which is inevitably religion. thus I said: oh so God does exist.
Also, when I posit a basic truth and then a truth of human knowledge I am reifying the duality of reality, and thus positing the existance of God, or some extra or supra natural, separated entic force or being.
so, i do (attempt to) not speak of basic truths through that route that leads to contradiction of terms. And if i speak of essential things, it is to point to what may indeed be essential or implicit in the discourse presented.
I speak of how this basic truth may be effective in reality, that is, in knowledge, since we cannot know of something without knowledge, as Chaz pointed out earlier. To posit something that is beyond positing is contradictory, yet in that we may know what you mean, it is paradoxical. Thus I try to speak without arousing these phenomenal discursive ends. I try to.
at least, this is how i see it.
I have to wonder, then, as to your post above, what truth is being distorted by humans and what does the non-distorted state look like?
and we must be careful about conflating disparate arenas of reality.
If you refer to, say, some 'real' situation of water shortage and the 'truth' would be (or part or one of the truths) that more wells need to be dug and then there was a commentary which said that there is no shortage, then we could say that the former was basic truth and the latter was the distortion.
This cannot be used as an example of a universal type of basic truth, at least, I do not subscribe to taking local phenomenona and extrapolating it for general, parallel meaning.
You are proposing that there is a 'sub-stratum' of 'actual' reality that informs what our knowledge may come upon in its own right, and thereby are suggesting that human knowlegde is 'incomplete' as humans are coming upon 'more truth' of the universe as we progress in our understanding of the universe. You are proposing that there is a possible 'total universe' of which human knowledge has only grasped a part or portion, and these realities, these truths, universal and human, relate respectivly to the 'basic truth' and 'human knowledge (of truth)'.
Is this a correct statement of you position?
Come on man be honest with with me. You don't honestly expect me to believe that you really misunderstood me such that you really think that I meant that a particular truth varies from individual to individual, do you. Come on i wrote it as clear as day.
