BEARERS OF THE TRUTH....

najmelliw
You may have made that remark with a certain religion in mind. However, I believe it is basic to all religions. Tolerant or not.

One of my concerns for America is the increasing shift toward Christianity as THE RELIGION. I prize my freedom to seek the TRUTH in our existence; hence, my presence adherence to U-U (Unitarian-). In the rural South, my present home, it is assumed you are Christian. If you want an alternative, you either create it or you drive to a metropolitan area.

Mapleleaf, I think I said that western civilization gives us the intellectual tools to work toward practical agreement on "Truth" in areas of ethics, human rights, government , and community (I have slightly expanded on my former statement). This seems to have been offensive, but I don't think it need be. I did not say that other cultures and civilizations have no such tools.

There are some western values that I think are beneficial in the effort to foster the above more general values. These would include democratic form of government; equal treatment, status, and opportunities for women; general respect for human rights; and the elevation of the rights mentioned in our Bill of Rights. I do not mean to imply that the west has a perfect or even adequate record in observing these ideals, but we do elevate them and incorporate them into our laws and try to enforce the laws. Many other civilizations reject these values out of hand or only give them lip service. At best, they are debated among various factions within those civilizations.

In this respect, at least, I think that western civilization has evolved a set of values that offer more promise for world peace and the free development of the human spirit than do the value systems of some of the more oppressive and authoritarian cultures.

As evidence of the desirability of the western values, we might refer to the good old fashioned "vamoose" principle. We find that the peoples in the world's oppressive civilizations seem to vamoose to the west by the millions; whereas, westerners vamoosing to the authoritarian civilizations seeking a better life are few.

One area in which some large factions, perhaps even majorities in some cases, have done well in the non-western civilizations is in the area of tolerance. It seems though that the loudest factions are the intolerant ones.

I was not offended...merely promoting discussion.

Bearers of the truth
Truth, I think, could be what stands up through time. The only maybe "truth" I can think of this moment would be that we DID get a body and we WILL suffer.

Kind of a broad subject, truth. We search, and we find the truth that applies. We find it within our own self, but only after searching everywhere else.

I live in Texas where people involve themselves in Bible "study groups," just to belong in some group. I visit churches here that I attended as a child and they still speak of "missionaries" that "spread the truth" as if the past 40 years didn't happen.

Mapleleaf

.

I see no shift. The US has always been considered a primarily Christian nation. If anything it has now, probably more than ever before, become more tolerant to other religions. When I think back to what it was like in the 40's I can see a vast difference in the attitude and understanding of people.

Mapleleaf, I have attempted to juxtapose liberal values over against authoritarian values and to say that liberal values will produce a society more open to human freedom and development.

I did this in response to your question. Now I am wondering if you find merit in the argument, or if you see things another way?

Tex-Star, however tentative and subjective truth may be, almost all of human life, development of ideas, technology, and such comforts as we have are built upon the assumption that we can know things. We in effect set aside our ultimate doubts and act as if science does in fact tell us something about the world in which we live. We set aside our skepticism regarding the inadequacies of language, and we develope useful and workable theories by which we govern ourselves. I contend that it is necessary to do this, and that to retreat into a shell of total doubt is to deny ones responsibility to ones neighbors, community and the world as a whole. What do you think?

As I read, I am realizing how much I am focusing my comments on me, not society. I want society to protect my rights. I think I may be out of focus.

Yes Hazlitt, I am pretty much in your camp. But I wonder about the ability of a people to learn and run a democracy within a few years, let alone a generation or two. I would like to think that all the values you espoused would apply, but I'm not sure if they would.

If I may let me ask this - How you do want society to go about protecting those rights of yours?

Fishin', Just got in from yardwork...let me think about your question.

Mapleleaf, I don't think you are out of focus. You happen to be momentarily focused on one end of a continum. One way of looking at at least a part of western politics is that we are always engaged in a struggle to decide where the rights of the individual leave off and the rights of the community begin, and vice versa. This is the hidden question every time we debate questions of taxation, social security, welfare, and many other policies. It is an underlying question in most elections. We are always trying to decide where to strike the balance or where to draw the line. It is a constant on going debate. Luckily, we have a reasonably civilized method of deciding. Of course, most decisions are not final. After a while the policy questions aise again, and we must decide anew.

Hi Fishin, I like your question. I'm eager to see how you and Mapleleaf work it out.

Great post Hazlitt! I've thought along very similar lines several times.

We don't really have anything to work out (at least not that I know of!). I was just a little interested in the view from the other side.

Mapleleaf, you are right to wonder how long it will take for the world's authoritarian civilizations to recognize the virtues of democracy and liberal values in general, or if they ever will. No one has any way of knowing what will happen.

My personal opinion is that the policies of the present administration in the U.S. will not foster that recognition. But we stray from your orginal question about the nature of truth.

Great thread! I read all your posts with great interest, and wish that I read them earlier in the discourse.

Without derailing the interesting discussion in place, I wanted to mention the nuance that I have found interesting (and hopefully apropos).

The distinction between TRUTH and TRUTHFULNESS gets muddled sometimes. Many of the issues facing societies today has to do with truthfulness; democracy, equality issues, social justice issues, just to name a few.

While truth may be everchanging based on knowledge, exposure, etc., there is a concept often lumped in with truth, while it really is BEING TRUE, which speaks more about the interaction of persons around truth (whatever they think it to be). This is not the same as truth itself, but how humans interact with each other around this nebulous truth thing.

Bearer of truth
Hazelitt, you said, "Tex-Star, however tentative and subjective truth may be, almost all of human life, development of ideas, technology, and such comforts as we have are built upon the assumption that we can know things."

Truth is only subjective and tentative when it comes to knowledge of how we ourselves think we, and others, should live and be governed. I speak of a higher knowledge of who we are and why we even live here on this planet, not how some one person thinks others should be "governed." The people make that garguantuan decision backed up by our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Hazelitt, you yourself seem to be setting up a system of values that YOU think will produce a society "more open to human freedom and development."

Don't be surprised that some people, indeed some entire countries, may feel this NOT to be their truth.

Who, BTW, is "retreating into a shell of total doubt" even "denying ones responsibility to ones neighbors, community and the world as a whole." What I THINK is that this statement is insulting.

Tex-Star, if my statement was insulting, or if I misunderstood your position, I apologize. I assure you I never write with an intent to insult anyone. Again, my apologies.

Gravy, welcome to Able2know. Good to have you aboard.

I am trying to grasp the exact meaning of your post. Are you saying that as regards Truth you too experience some of the same frustrations that we have all expressed on this thread as to the uncertainties connected with that commodity; but that you, nevertheless, believe that individuals ought to deal with each other on the basis of Truthfulness, by which you mean that they ought to be open and honest about what they think? If this is what you mean, then I can see the distinction you are making , and I am with you all the way.

Fishin', I have ridden the horse back to the beginning in that I feel comfortable with the basic system as provided by the Constitution. Although, I am sometimes disappointed in the mindset of the people of our country and the character of the representatives they choose.

Gravy, good to read you again. And the rest of you, I am very pleased with the quality of the postings.

gravy, are you speaking to the ability of people to communicate with as opposed to talking at others within our democracy?

I saw this phrase while reading an article entitled White Supremacist Is Held in Ordering Judge's Death from the NYT. Here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/09/national/09HATE.html?ex=1042866000&en=3e5aa5f93561e739&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE How about this as an example of perceptions of TRUTH?

Hazelitt, I realize you did not intend to insult. I understand what you say, but people living without a democracy and all the rest of what we may feel is good for them? Well, some tend to resent that interference in their lives with a vengence. They may even try to convince us, possibly force us, to live as they.