BEARERS OF THE TRUTH....

If you are not a bearer of truth are you bad person?

Truth is in the eye of the beholder. Nothing more, nothing less. c.i.

Well, we are juggling perceptions...Husker...I'm thinking about your posting...my initial response is NO.

i am inclined to think that if you are a bearer of "truth" you probably are a bad person.

OK dyslexia, can you detail your reasoning?

dys, Your truth or my truth? c.i.

well. aside from the fact that i am always right: truth is arbitrary to the max. and when an individual claims to KNOW the TRUTH about anything i can easy determine they are wrong and potentially dangerous.

dys, People that claim to always be right worry me some. c.i.

and often i am left

najmelliw



Sounds like the definition of organized religion

I think of Socrates, who in the end, stood with his freedom of thought and independence of spirit, against a war-weary, returning-to-conservative-values Athens. And then he stood against his followers who wanted him to bribe his way out of the country and to freedom. His claim was that he was giving up only the worst years of his old age, dying a martyr and rising again to inspire generations and maybe even civilizations yet to be born.

But . . . I think these men also meet that unfortunately lacking question: Dahmer, Hinkley, and the Son of Sam.

On Self-Knowledge, Kahil Gibran says:

As far as, can a person be true to truth and also be true to a group . . .

Well, maybe if the group was a debate team. Or a group for lively and contentious discussions.

Hum . . . a group of individuals? What would we call it?????

Are we it?

In all that I read above I perceive a subjectiveness in rightness or wrongness of truth, which is connocated as good or bad.... in your idea of truth.

dupre, I appreciated the quote...and a worthy nomination in Socrates. Aaaah Husk, subjectiveness....when can one know the truth when one is bound by subjectiveness. I am getting dizzy....

And another thing; truth is, to a certain extent, an attitude.

I think most would think highly of someone who, with reasonable consideration, holds to their notion of "the" Truth, against all odds, and without concern for any negative effects this may have on their status, or safety; in spite of the fact that their ideas might be easily demonstrated to be in error.

One has to respect "truth", whether it be true or not!

There is a good deal of skeptical expression on this thread based on a subjective view of truth and knowledge. Someone commented that science is just another religion. this is true only if we choose to define religion so broadly that nearly every kind of belief can then be seen as a religion. If we give religion a tighter definition and do the same with science we can see that there are clear differences.

Similarly, in the fields of ethics, social behavior, and government, where there is disagreement and where the truth seems very much subject of opinion, there is still hope for broad agreement on principles of operation. If we cannot decide on the basis of absolute truth, we can certainly decide on the basis of "what seems to work," or "what provides the greatest good for the greatest number," or "what is fair," or (as seems to be popular right now) "the survival of the fittest." I think we must strive for agreement on large general principles from which acceptable behavior can be deduced. This brings people together. If we focus on the pure subjectivity of ideas, we splinter into intellectual anarchy, which will probably not work for us and which will undermine our entire value system.

Yes, truth is subject to subjectivity, but we must (I'm making a personal value judgement in which I hope others will join) focus on the areas of agreement and build social cohesiveness and community. I think that western civilization gives us the tools to do this.

And Eastern civilization does not? What tools exist in one and not in the other?

au1929,

I think there can be more to religion then the infamous : 'I believe this and I am right so you are wrong coz you don't believe this'
In the early days of islam the other 'beliefs of the book', being the groups of the jews and the christians, also called the dhimmi, were giving certain privileges other non-believers did not get.
The mongols were very tolerant. They allowed all beliefs to be practiced equally, even in the capital city of Khartoum, so long as they also prayed for the well being of the royal family. They believed in a kind of shamanism, which didn't even remotely resemble any of the major organized religions in the world.

Still, I made that remark with a certain religion in my mind...