BEARERS OF THE TRUTH....

Bogowo, you bring up several issues. First on the nature of debate. By debate I do not mean competition. I mean the stating of an idea and a few reasons why it might be true, and then listening to what others think of what has been said. Then a reply to them. In this way we come to understand one another and sometimes, if our egos don't get in the way, to see the error of our thinking. We then make modifications. This is the general process that I like to follow in discussions of this kind.

On the question of intuitively knowing the truth in the case of "Thou shalt not kill." In the jungle days that you speak of it may well have been the intuitive thing to kill upon the slightest suspicion of hostility. There may have been a long process of social and moral evolution before we got to the point of thinking that it was wrong to kill in nearly all circumstances. I suspect that intuition as applied to morality reflects social and cultural indoctrination rather than the taping into an unseen source of absolute truth.

Lash Goth, you seen to understand where I'm coming from, but you disagree with me. No problem. I appreciate all your input. This is all fun for me or I wouldn't be doing it.

JL, thanks for a good discussion.

CI, your idea that our political philosophies are determined by factors other than rational processes is a favorite with me, and I have pursued it at great length on other threads. In the beginning of my political education I was given two books: one conservative and the other liberal. I read them and knew "intuitively" (to borrow Bogowo's word) that I was a liberal. One set of arguments was appealing and the other appalling. I can only guess at why.

Mapleleaf, sorry to have been a problem. The questions came thick and fast. I just tried to give answers. You are to be complimented on starting a good thread.

No reason to stop some good interaction on account of my tired brain...I'm having a little ego funk.

I just got around to reading all the posts from Sunday and Monday... I liked it a lot! This is a great interaction, I enormously enjoy reading it!

That doesn't sound good Mapleleaf!
Of course, I'd know for sure if I knew what in the world the word funk means in relation to your ego...

Hazlitt,
In regard to your statement for cicerone,
it also means the books were comparable regarding author's, style, reasoning etc. I consider myself a liberal, but I find more enjoyment in reading a thoughtfully structured, intelligent discussion with a conservative theme,
then in a collection of pages conveniently bound in a book form but otherwise not necessarily connected containing the rambling thoughts of a liberal with aspirations, but no talents, to become a writer.

These are extremes, of course, but I only wish to make my point.

As for 'thou shalt not kill' and the jungle... I can remember reading a book (don't remmber the author or the title, something with flies I think) about a group of boys that end up on a deserted island and quickly loose all traces of civilized behavior.
I have to go, otherwise I'd look it up, but I liked reading it, reminded me that civilized behavior is at best skin deep.

Naj

naj, Your last statement, "civilized behavior is at best skin deep" is really somewhat more complex than what your statement implies. Herein lies the crux of trying to debate "truth." The movie you had in mind is the "Lord of the Flies."


http://www.appliedhealthhomestudy.com/lmt_home_study_courses/cells_tissues_integumentary/


c.i.

truth
I think I understand Mapleleaf's "ego funk". In this case, I think, it's when it appears that everyone else's ego is the problem. Mapleleaf's recognition of his own ego funk, shows he has transcended it. I applaud him.

Aaaah, I love applause!

I think the applause is too loud! c.i.

I'm enjoying this very much, even though I don't have the brain-power right now to respond. What is truth? That's enough to tie my noodle in a knot for the rest of the day.

truth
The best cure for ego funk--applause, especially when it's deserved.

NAJ, the book you read was"Lord of the Flies" by William Golding.

The two books I referred to were "Conscience of a Conservative" by Berry Goldwater, and "The Coming Political Breakthrough" by Chester Bowels. The first was a political tract, while the second was much more complete in its presentation.

We must distinguish truth as "verity", and truth as "sincerity", they may not coincide. Anyone that errs while believing of being right is not a liar, even if his/her statements are not true.

steissd, I don't think it's so much a label of a "lie," but of belief and faith. c.i.

Truth as "Prize"
Reading the recent posts prompted me to consider our relationship to "truth" today relative to its place in the society of primitive humans.
[I would recommend literature by Konrad Lorenz, and Robert Ardrey, for a backround of ancient societal paterns, and nature.]

Truth in modern times is basically a "luxury". The search for truth is the domain of the educated, and privileged, since only they have the time, resources, and inclination to pursue that which is not immediately applicable to one's physical or social needs.

Today, in the western world this previously select group includes most of society; is there a message here? Perhaps a search for "truth" should involve itself with seeking to improve the well being of those on this planet who cannot afford this "luxury"; perhaps then within this effort, the elusive idea - "truth" will become apparent!

I am, therefore I am!

I prefer:

I am, therefore they can be too!

BoGo, I'm not sure I can agree that seeking "truth" is a luxury. Even primative cultures seek truth, based on their culture and religion. c.i.

truth
C.I., I agree that "primitives" must be concerned with "truth" at least at the pragmatic level. They must be "right" when deciding which way to go to find game, which plants to consume to cure illnesses, and so on. But I tend to agree with Bogowo that they are less likely, depending on how close--and how chronically they are close--to the starvation line, and how much time they have for speculation and abstraction. In other words, I believe they are LESS LIKELY to be concerned with theoretical matters. For example, we are talking in these forums about the existence of souls, truth, reincarnation, etc. issues that have no bearing on our practical lives. Why? because at the practical level we are fairly secure. So-called primitives are, by our definition, too insecure at the practical to "play" around with ideas as we do. They DO seem to want to formulate some ideas about their fate after they die and the legitimizing sources of morals that govern their social behavior--we call this religion. Once they have established that, however, it seems, they cut off debate in the interest of a kind of stablizing orthodoxy.

JLN, Your last statement speaks for all no matter at what level of economic growth or intelligence. Why do you think most people in the US are of the christian faith? After two thousand years of debate, most have accepted what their parents have believed - even when definitive proof does not exist. Truth is in the eye of the beholder; no more, no less.

Don't recall who said it but I do agree that "knowing people are always silent."

c.i. do you really think that's a truth, that most Americans after 2000 years of debate believe what their parents did. What an incredibly horrid thought.

I must be extremely lucky, not to have parents who pushed a particular belief system into my brain. Actually, I have searched far and wide, and I have found some truth.

When truth is found, what does one do with it? I find truth in very small books such as Kahlil Gibrand's "The Prophet," Richard Bach's "Jonathon Livingston Seagull", probably hundreds of others that simply string words together to get one tinsy tiny thought across that may make some else's life easier in the knowing that the garbage placed into their heads is incorrect and MUST GO.

The truth I've found in the past 30 years, now by gosh, I would NEVER repeat. Why? Because I would be quickly burned at a stake somewhere, or the modern way of punishing - an institution for the insane. Better for me if I can write one tiny little book that, necessarily, hides the truth I am speaking of, but allows little tiny peeps into what I'm saying through analogy. As in parable.

Because, like I said, knowing people are always silent. What they do, however, is ACT. They find some unique way to help others who are broken, hungry and lost or whatever.

I like those who admit they are in an "ego funk." No kidding! That is a good thing to say!

tex, It's really not a 'horrid thought.' Most of my friends and acquaintances have followed in their parent's religion. To take it one step further, all my siblings are christians, so are all of their children. I think that's a 'normal' progression of most living in this world. If you are born in Italy, Mexico, or Spain, you're probably a catholic. If born in India, you can be a Hindu, Muslim, Christian, or Jain - or even Buddhist. Most Arab countries will result in their population being Muslim. No surprises there. c.i.