BEARERS OF THE TRUTH....

Me too! This thread was leading me towards no absolutes.

Mapleleaf, Waiting for absolute truth will be a life-time endeavor. c.i.

Well, I used the FL voting debacle as an example.
Bill Clinton: He had sex. The legalese he employed to explain his truth, was not truth. It was deception.

What topic do you want to apply my theory to, in order to answer your question?

Lash Goth,

Politics would be the very last subject in the world I would try to find absolute truths in... Politicians seem to have little trouble with the word truth, they use it all the time, but the absolute quality of it (in fact, any quality of it) remains hotly debatable.

Naj.

naj, Even between the two parties. c.i.

truth
My modem disconnected after I finished a longer post, but the central point was that we must distinquish, I think, between the Truth (as a kind of absolute and God-given proposition about the nature of things) and simply being truthful, in the sense of sincerity and non-deception. When we ask the rhetorical question--when caught in a lie/deception--"Well, what IS truth?" we are showing bad faith. We are switching from a situation of little "t" truth to that of big "T" Truth. Two different things altogether.

truth
Najmelliw, you asked earlier about whether or not we are talking philosophy or politics in our discussion of the nature of truth. Some philosophers, Nietzsche and Foucault, for example, emphasize the political nature of truth in terms of real life situations. They argue that those with more power are in a position to impose conceptions of what is true and what is false on those with less power. I wonder how ya'll feel about this proposition. To what extent is it "true"? Notice, that we here have no power over one another but we are debating the "truth" about something--in this case the nature of truth itself. Can we, given our situational EQUALITY, come to a non-imposed conclusion? If so, are the above philosphers then wrong?

Absolute truth is like an extraterrestial life form 6Trillion lightyears away. They may both 'exist', but we may never get to them.

Politics is about travelling as little as possible towards absolute truth, as long as you're making sure the competition is derailed and/or behind you.

There is an aspect of the nature of "truth" which, however evanescent it may be, reads true ("true") to me; there are some things which an individual knows, deep in their heart (mind), are "true"; there need be no discussion, no proof, no evidence; you just "know".......don't you?

BoGo, But somebody else's "you just know," may be different from yours. c.i.

Error!!
True, other people can be wrong!

truth
Bogowo, I don't want to (continue to) be too stuffy (if that's the word) or picky here. But the interesting proposition you make regarding immediately-known truths, should be phrased a little differently. See if you agree. You say that "there are some THINGS [that one] knows deep in their heart (mind) are 'TRUE'...you just 'know'..." This seems to be particularly so with mystics, who say that when you "see" (intuit) the nature of something, like your "true Self", there need be no discussion, no theoretical explanation. You feel the certainty that comes with intuition. This seems to be the case when you see or grasp that something IS as it is, like the axioms of Geometry. Truths that just ring true, that their opposite seems absurd. Now this is not the same thing as a "truth proposition," a statement/argument/hypothesis/explanation ABOUT the nature of some situation, thing, or event (or class thereof). This seems to be what you are referring to with, "some things...that "you just 'know'" are true. Here the word "TRUE" suggests to me a proposition, a truth statement, as opposed to an "IS"--where you just "see" into the character of something, like your true nature.

Let me read this again later to see if makes sense. And in the meantime let me know if it does for you.

JL, when we argue on a forum like this, some are more knowledgeable about the subject than others. Is this not a form of power? Would not these more knowledgeable ones have an advantage over those with less knowledge? So, even in an on-line discussion of "what is truth" there is possibly no equality.

Some are more gifted than others. Some have greater powers of expression. There are many inequalities that come into play in cyber argument.

Is this the sort of answer you were looking for?

and therein lies the rub.

People, will one of you throw me a bone?
I am obviously one of the less-read, less educated souls on this thread, actively seeking an explanation as to what the hell you are talking about.

Can anyone pick a topic and drag my poor brain along behind you while we see once and for all if there is such a thing as an absolute truth?

C'mon. Give to charity.

truth
Good point, Hazlitt. But the power one person might have over another in such a case is of a non-political nature; it is the power of persuasion (the kind seen in any social situation), but not coercive power, which seems to define a political situation. In this case one person cannot deprive or reward another in any material sense if they do or do not comply and agree to the influential person's argument. Two people can be political equals and yet one may "win" a debate over the other because of better evidence, experience, whatever. I put WIN in quotes because the other may still refuse to "give in"--since he is not a political inferior he has nothing to fear from this. In such a case we must have some clear rule to define who is a winner (as in chess or a foot race), or have a (politically neutral) referee to proclaim the winner. But your assertion that knowledge is power is correct; it's just not, in this case, POLITICAL power. If we are not moving toward an agreement, we are at least refining the terms of this discussion.

truth
Lash Goth, I'm sorry for taking us down a side road in this discussion. But please, enough of your false humility. I've followed your input long enough to know you are far from needing a bone.

JL, the powers that I mentioned could be used in cyber political arguments to make the opponent look ridiculous, to cause himer to loose face, to be or feel humiliated, and thereby cause them to admit defeat or perhaps to simply withdraw from argument.

You are certainly right that no physical harm, or coercion has taken place, but still the argument has been "won" by virtue of exercise of a power in the possession of one person but not in the possession of the other.

truth
Hazlitt, your response does you credit. But have no concern for me; I do not feel in the least humiliated.

I've been faking.

Really.