The absolute truth .

china
#1
There is a assumption these days that everything is relative, a matter of personal opinion, that there is no such thing as truth or fact independent of personal perception.
Just wonder ; is there such a thing as truth apart from personal belief, apart from personal opinion? Is there such a thing as truth? This question was asked in the ancient days by the Greeks, by the Hindus and by the Buddhists. It is one of the strange facts in the Eastern religions that doubt was encouraged - to doubt, to question - and in religion in the West it is rather put down, it is called heresy. I think that one must find out for oneself, apart from personal opinions, perceptions, experiences, which are always relative, whether there is a perception, a seeing, which is absolute truth, not relative.
How would one find out if there is such a thing as truth which is absolute, which is complete, which is never changing in the climate of personal opinions? How does one's mind, the intellect, thought, find out? One is enquiring into something that demands a great deal of investigation, an action in daily life, a putting aside of that which is false -I believe that is the only way to proceed. If one has an illusion, a fantasy, an image, a romantic concept, of truth or love, then that is the very barrier that prevents one moving further. Can one honestly investigate what is an illusion? How does illusion come into being? What is the root of it? What it means is playing with something which is not actual , right?
The actual is that which is happening, whether it is what may be called good, bad or indifferent; it is that which is actually taking place. When one is incapable of facing that which is actually taking place in oneself, one creates illusions to escape from it. If one is unwilling or afraid to face what is actually going on, that very avoidance creates illusion, a fantasy, a romantic movement, away from that which is. That word `illusion' implies the moving away from that which is. Can one avoid this movement, this escape, from actuality? What is the actual? The actual is that which is happening, including the responses, the ideas, the beliefs and opinions one has. To face them is not to create illusion. Illusions can take place only when there is a movement away from the fact, from that which is happening, that which actually is. In understanding that which is, it is not one's personal opinion that judges but the actual observation. One cannot observe what is actually going on if one's belief or conditioning qualifies the observation; then it is the avoidance of the understanding of that which is.
If one could look at what is actually taking place, then there would be complete avoidance of any form of illusion. Can one do this? Can one actually observe one's dependency; either dependency on a person, on a belief, on an ideal, or on some experience which has given one a great deal of excitement? That dependence inevitably creates illusion. So a mind that is no longer creating illusion, that has no hypotheses, that has no hallucinations, that does not want to grasp an experience of that which is called truth, has now brought order into itself. it has order. There is no confusion brought about by illusions, by delusions, hallucinations; the mind has lost its capacity to create illusions. Then what is truth? The astrophysicists, the scientists, are using thought to investigate the material world around them, they are going beyond physics, beyond, but always moving outward. But if one starts inwards one sees that the `me' is also matter. And thought is matter. If one can go inwards, moving from fact to fact, then one begins to discover that which is beyond matter. Then there is such a thing as absolute truth, if one goes through with it .Please investigate it ; in yourself.
Last edited by china; Jun 24th, 2008 at 06:11 PM..
 
Risus
#2
As Johnny Cash said in one of his songs: "What is truth?"
 
china
#3
Quote:

As Johnny Cash said in one of his songs: "What is truth?"

There was another guy long before Johnny Cash and /or his song ,who said the same thing , his name was Pilate .
Wonder if Pilate played a guitar ?
Last edited by china; Jun 25th, 2008 at 05:12 AM..
 
MikeyDB
#4
What does "absolute" mean?

Does this mean we have to re-write quantum theory?
 
MikeyDB
#5
What does "absolute" mean?

Does this mean we have to re-write quantum theory?
 
china
#6
Quote:

What does "absolute" mean?

something that is -what is, independent of personal interpretation.
Quote:

Does this mean we have to re-write quantum theory?

First ,how much of quantum physics is your work that makes you worry about rewriting it
Second ,why would you want to rewrite it ?
 
MikeyDB
#7
China

Quantum theory suggests there is no "absolute". Look it up!
 
china
#8
Don't have to or should I say I am very much familiar with the works of David Bohm's exploring the QP and his spiritual travels .
Quote:

Quantum theory suggests there is no "absolute". .

Well ,absolute is what is ,no personal interpretations ..
Theory is an interpretation..that of many.Look it up MikeyDB
Last edited by china; Jun 25th, 2008 at 08:54 AM..
 
MikeyDB
#9
Much of Kant's philosophy can be seen as an attempt to provide satisfactory philosophical grounds for the objective basis of Newton's mechanics against Humean scepticism. Kant showed that classical mechanics is in accordance with the transcendental conditions for objective knowledge. Kant's philosophy undoubtedly influenced Bohr in various ways as many scholars in recent years have noticed (Hooker 1972; Folse 1985; Honnor 1987; Faye 1991; Kaiser 1992; and Chevalley 1994). Bohr was definitely neither a subjectivist nor a positivist philosopher, as Karl Popper (1967) and Mario Bunge (1967) have claimed. He explicitly rejected the idea that the experimental outcome is due to the observer. As he said: “It is certainly not possible for the observer to influence the events which may appear under the conditions he has arranged” (APHK, p.51). Not unlike Kant, Bohr thought that we could have objective knowledge only in case we can distinguish between the experiential subject and the experienced object. It is a precondition for the knowledge of a phenomenon as being something distinct from the sensorial subject, that we can refer to it as an object without involving the subject's experience of the object. In order to separate the object from the subject itself, the experiential subject must be able to distinguish between the form and the content of his or her experiences. This is possible only if the subject uses causal and spatial-temporal concepts for describing the sensorial content, placing phenomena in causal connection in space and time, since it is the causal space-time description of our perceptions that constitutes the criterion of reality for them. Bohr therefore believed that what gives us the possibility of talking about an object and an objectively existing reality is the application of those necessary concepts, and that the physical equivalents of “space,” “time,” “causation,” and “continuity” were the concepts “position,” “time,” “momentum,” and “energy,” which he referred to as the classical concepts. He also believed that the above basic concepts exist already as preconditions of unambiguous and meaningful communication, built in as rules of our ordinary language. So, in Bohr's opinion the conditions for an objective description of nature given by the concepts of classical physics were merely a refinement of the preconditions of human knowledge.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/ (external - login to view)


And your exhaustive litany of double-talk and pointless ramblings is…?

Of course it’s not a “theory” now is it …Because you affirm the absolute truth of your understanding of everything that was and is and will be…

You’re arrogant enough to be an American!
 
china
#10
Quote:

And your exhaustive litany of double-talk and pointless ramblings is…?

Very impressive MikeyDB .Now try to 'discover and find the answers to your questions in yourself by yourself.As I have stated in the original post ....
Quote:

If you can go inwards, moving from fact to fact, then you will begin to discover that which is beyond matter and see that there is such a thing as an absolute truth .

....and that ain't no "exhaustive litany of double-talk and pointless ramblings" ;it's a hard work though MikeyDB.
Last edited by china; Jun 25th, 2008 at 04:29 PM..
 
Socrates the Greek
#11
What a waste of time, china I think you must be in the early stage in training your self to become a Lawyer.
Last edited by Socrates the Greek; Jun 25th, 2008 at 07:26 PM..
 
Risus
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Socrates the GreekView Post

What a waist of time, china I think you must be in the early stage in training your self to become a Lawyer.

I believe you mean 'waste'.

Maybe the topic is just over your head...
 
china
#13
Quote:

What a waist of time, china I think you must be in the early stage in training your self to become a Lawyer.

That's the problem old man ,you think to much .I'll throw a line;thinking is not what is therefore not actual .
 
Socrates the Greek
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by chinaView Post

That's the problem old man ,you think to much .I'll throw a line;thinking is not what is therefore not actual .



Hey China I want to take this opportunity and clarify why I have a slight sarcastic and cold tone on my interaction with you. It started by you in past posts not talking positive about Canada if you recall, and I simply took offence to that, explaining to you that “don’t sit there throwing rocks at the country you lived in for many years, because you would look like a hypocrite if things didn’t work out well in China for you, and you could be coming back and resort to suck-alling”. I regret saying that statement to you but under provoked circumstance I reacted. Now, as to your philosophical line “thinking is not what is therefore not actual” The link below dose an exhalent job in describing the theater of thinking and I am happy to share with you this knowledge.
www.anxietybc.com/resources/p...icThinking.pdf (external - login to view)

Also should anyone on this forum be interested on the roots of creativity and genius I am happy to share.

www.supermemo.com/articles/genius.htm (external - login to view)

 
Socrates the Greek
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by RisusView Post

I believe you mean 'waste'.

Maybe the topic is just over your head...

Thank you pal
 
Socrates the Greek
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by RisusView Post

I believe you mean 'waste'.

Maybe the topic is just over your head...

Ha hahahah over my head? , the contribution on a Thread while intimidating the forum participant is 0. When the writer insinuates that he will argue common knowledge, I find that to be arrogant mentality….. . I don’t have a problem paying attention to new info but to suggest that one will take one or two words and start the analyses which ultimately
leads to paralysis, that is A WASTE OF TIME.
We are all intelligent human beings, it all comes down to how much info we can retain and logically manage in our memory. IE good goes in good comes out, garbage goes in and garbage comes out.
Last edited by Socrates the Greek; Jun 25th, 2008 at 08:49 PM..
 
china
#17
Socrates the Greek (external - login to view)

Quote:

Ha hahahah over my head? , the contribution on a Thread while intimidating the forum participant is 0. When the writer insinuates that he will argue common knowledge, I find that to be arrogant mentality….. . I don’t have a problem paying attention to new info but to suggest that one will take one or two words and start the analyses which ultimately
leads to paralysis, that is A WASTE OF TIME.
We are all intelligent human beings, it all comes down to how much info we can retain and logically manage in our memory. IE good goes in good comes out, garbage goes in and garbage comes out

Oh man , do you ever have allot to learn .I,ll give you a hint StG. An intelligent man asks questions if there is something that he doesn't understand .An ignorant one will try to show how intelligent he is.
 
china
#18
There is no need to prove the truth. Truth is such a sun that it cannot remain hidden. No matter how many walls come in front of it, the light of the truth cannot remain hidden.
 
MikeyDB
#19
One of the principle arguments entertained between "believers" and "non-believers" is that the seminal crux, the essential gist behind these concepts belong in separate and distinct domains. China, you seem prepared to mix domains in arguing your perspectives... You've contributed some propositions that grey the boundaries between them and appear to expect other participants will ignore this blurring....

Perhaps your intent isn't to clarify anything...simply to provide youself with entertainment throwing out nonsense mixed with hyperbole...

Maybe you need a different hobby wherein the burden of your introspection can be invested in bonsai or origami or something that doesn't require feedback from anyone else....

You've presented your ideas with the aplomb of the self-confident, self-assured that your perspective and only your perspective has merit. When I say oranges are orange you'd point out that they're "orange" only because that's the way I personally interpret the spectral feedback detected by my optic nerve... and hence since knowledge is fleeting and unnecessary...the "truth" is a shining "sun" and intelligence is wholly different than intellect.... whatever I see as "orange" is a figment of my imagination...

Is there a point to all this China?
 
china
#20
Quote:

Is there a point to all this China?

Absolutely ,MikeyDb .
 
darkbeaver
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by chinaView Post

That's the problem old man ,you think to much .I'll throw a line;thinking is not what is therefore not actual .

Thinking is actual, there is no absolute division between what is and what is not and what might be. Once a thought is born it becomes real enough. Did you create it or did you assemble it from the surrounding fabric? Was it always here just waiting for a fortuitous conjunction of some mind?
I think thought is as real as iron.
 
darkbeaver
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by chinaView Post

There is no need to prove the truth. Truth is such a sun that it cannot remain hidden. No matter how many walls come in front of it, the light of the truth cannot remain hidden.

This you will never proove. I bet mankind will pass from existance with a thin sliver of revealed truth, the rest he could not incorporate even if the species approached infinity in time. The wall of time is thick, there are an infinite number of questions we will never ask.
 
MikeyDB
#23
Why does it matter? What would anyone be willing to do or change or how would they alter the way they treat anyone else...even if they "knew" the "truth"?

Depending on where you live on this little rock, you live for a very short time...even in terms of the longevity of living organisms who command the air and the water and the earth to their will..... Human beings don't live for thousands of years ...for geologic epochs....but for only a brief tick of the cosmic clock.

Is this "truth" this "absolute" reality....forever and without limit or boundary? Is this "truth" a cosmic element of the universe without time without beginning and without end..?

If it is...what possible interest would it be to short-lived organisms like us?


If it isn't then aren't we "stuck" with the temporal ambiguities that impact our "awareness".... short term "truths" that work in the immediate and ....that's enough?

Again.... What's yer point?
 
china
#24
darkbeaver
Hi darkbeaver ,It's almost 10:30 pm in China ,walked into my hotel room (had a wonderful dinner) Looked in my laptop and there is your letter .Man I;m so happy .I'm happy that yyou disagree with me.(doesnt everybody) Nope ,Im not drunk I will answer it.
OkOk?

Quote:

Thinking is actual, there is no absolute division between what is and what is not and what might be.

Actuality is actual in the present ,NOW,that is why is called actual .It is What Is.
Thinking ,no matter "of what" is past .Even if you think of "what might be "-the future, youare still thinking of the past..Do I have to explain?

Quote:

Once a thought is born it becomes real enough.

Where does thought come from if not from our memory .Memory is where we accumulate
whatever we have studied ,our experiences, likes dislikes and whatever else our memory accumulates,no memory -no thought (you haave to remember what you think)no thought ,no memory.

Quote:

Was it always here just waiting for a fortuitous conjunction of some mind?

I think that is a silly observation.

Quote:

I think thought is as real as iron.

Sure ;and as real as your EGO.
Last edited by china; Jun 28th, 2008 at 09:09 AM..
 
L Gilbert
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeyDBView Post

One of the principle arguments entertained between "believers" and "non-believers" is that the seminal crux, the essential gist behind these concepts belong in separate and distinct domains. China, you seem prepared to mix domains in arguing your perspectives... You've contributed some propositions that grey the boundaries between them and appear to expect other participants will ignore this blurring....
Perhaps your intent isn't to clarify anything...simply to provide youself with entertainment throwing out nonsense mixed with hyperbole...
Maybe you need a different hobby wherein the burden of your introspection can be invested in bonsai or origami or something that doesn't require feedback from anyone else....
You've presented your ideas with the aplomb of the self-confident, self-assured that your perspective and only your perspective has merit. When I say oranges are orange you'd point out that they're "orange" only because that's the way I personally interpret the spectral feedback detected by my optic nerve... and hence since knowledge is fleeting and unnecessary...the "truth" is a shining "sun" and intelligence is wholly different than intellect.... whatever I see as "orange" is a figment of my imagination...
Is there a point to all this China?

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Awesome, Mikey. I can't iomagine anyone saying this more eloquently.
 
L Gilbert
#26
BTW, to find an absolute truth, we'd have to know absolutely everything. As, Beav suggested, time would interfere with that so we'll never know an absolute truth because it is transitory. Therefore all truth is essentially relative for us.
 
Socrates the Greek
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by chinaView Post

Socrates the Greek (external - login to view)

Oh man , do you ever have allot to learn .I,ll give you a hint StG. An intelligent man asks questions if there is something that he doesn't understand .An ignorant one will try to show how intelligent he is.

Man you are not asking questions here, you are coming on to show that you are a professor of literary arts, when in fact you are not. What degrees do you have in philosophy, psychology, and neurological behavior? I don’t have a problem to debate but your understanding of debate is everything you say is correct and everything that others say you correct them. That is like playing soccer but only you can kick on my net, no one else is allowed to kick into your net. It is a two way street man.
 
quandary121
#28
Quote:


"What is truth?" is a very simple question. Of course, answering it isn't so simple. We can offer definitions like "Truth is that which conforms to reality, fact, or actuality." But this basic definition is not complete because its definition is open to interpretation and a wide variety of applications. What is reality? What is fact? What is actuality? How does perception effect truth? We could offer answers for each of these questions, but then we could again ask similar questions of those answers. I am reminded of the paradox of throwing a ball against a wall. It must get half way there, and then half way of the remaining distance, and then half of that distance, and so on. But, an infinite number of halves in this scenario never constitutes a whole. Therefore, it would seem that the ball would never reach the wall if we applied the conceptual truths of halves.
The ball-against-the-wall scenario simply illustrates that defining and redefining things as we try to approach a goal actually prevents us from getting to that goal. This is what philosophy does sometimes as it seeks to examine truth. It sometimes clouds issues so much, that nothing can be known for sure.
But, even though it is true that an infinite number of halves (1/2 of "a" + 1/2 of the...

Quote has been trimmed
In life's wilderness,
Choked by the weeds of error -
Bloom of beauty: truth.


Truth ...
“Is the opposite of lies.” “What is truth but what we believe to be truth?” “I don't believe that there's one truth. There are so many different people, and there are so many different ways you can look at things. I don't see how there could be just one truth.”
a doctrine instructing that truth and morality are relative and not absolute. Relativism asserts that what is accepted as truth is relative to a person's situation or standpoint, and denies that any standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.
If truth is relative, then absolute right and absolute wrong become doubtful and obscure. And if truth is relative, then only subjective and indefinite answers exist for the purpose and meaning of life. So is there any absolute or real truth in this complex and uncertain world?
Last edited by quandary121; Jun 27th, 2008 at 04:50 PM..
 
quandary121
#29
Quote:

Truth and Knowledge



There are no facts, only interpretations.

from Nietzsche's Nachlass, A. Danto translation.

Enemies of truth.-- Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.

from Nietzsche's Human, all too Human, s.483, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

Linguistic danger to spiritual freedom.-- Every word is a prejudice.

from Nietzsche's The Wanderer and his Shadow,s. 55, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

Man and things.-- Why does man not see things? He is himself standing in the way: he conceals things.

from Nietzsche's Daybreak, s. 483, R.J. Hollingdale transl

Mystical explanations.-- Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that they are not even superficial.

from Nietzsche's The Gay Science, s.126, Walter Kaufmann transl.

Metaphysical world.-- It is true, there could be a metaphysical world; the absolute possibility of it is hardly to be disputed. We behold all things through the human head and cannot cut off this head; while the question nonetheless remains what of the world would still be there if one had cut it off.

from Nietzsche's Human, All Too Human, s.9, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

Just beyond experience!-- Even great spirits have only their five fingers breadth of experience - just beyond it their thinking ceases and their endless empty space and stupidity begins.

from Nietzsche's Daybreak, s. 564, R.J. Hollingdale transl

What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms -- in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.
We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from; for as yet we have heard only of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist: to be truthful means using the customary metaphors - in moral terms, the obligation to lie according to fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all...

'On truth and lie in an extra-moral sense,' The Viking Portable Nietzsche, p.46-7, Walter Kaufmann transl.

Truth.-- No one now dies of fatal truths: there are too many antidotes to them.

from Nietzsche's Human, all too Human, s.516, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

What are man's truths ultimately? Merely his irrefutable errors.

from Nietzsche's The Gay Science, s.265, Walter Kaufmann transl.

Because we have for millenia made moral, aesthetic, religious demands on the world, looked upon it with blind desire, passion or fear, and abandoned ourselves to the bad habits of illogical thinking, this world has gradually become so marvelously variegated, frightful, meaningful, soulful, it has acquired color - but we have been the colorists: it is the human intellect that has made appearances appear and transported its erroneous basic conceptions into things.

from Nietzsche's Human, all too Human, s.16, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

The reasons for which 'this' world has been characterized as 'apparent' are the very reasons which indicate its reality; any other kind of reality is absolutely indemonstrable.

from Nietzsche's Twilight of the Idols, ch.3, s.6, Walter Kaufmann transl.
The total character of the world, however, is in all eternity chaos--in the sense not of a lack of necessity but a lack of order, arrangement, form, beauty, wisdom, and whatever names there are for our aesthetic anthropomorphisms...Let us beware of attributing to it heartlessness and unreason or their opposites: it is neither perfect nor beautiful, nor noble, nor does it wish to become any of these things; it does not by any means strive to imitate man... Let us beware of saying that there are laws in nature. There are only necessities: there is nobody who commands, nobody who obeys, nobody who trespasses... But when will we ever be done with our caution and care? When will all these shadows of God cease to darken our minds? When will we complete our de-deification of nature? When may we begin to "naturalize" humanity in terms of a pure, newly discovered, newly redeemed nature?
from Nietzsche's The Gay Science, s.109, Walter Kaufmann transl..



We have arranged for ourselves a world in which we can live - by positing bodies, lines, planes, causes and effects, motion and rest, form and content; without these articles of faith nobody could now endure life. But that does not prove them. Life is no argument. The conditions of life might include error.

from Nietzsche's The Gay Science, s.121, Walter Kaufmann transl..

Over immense periods of time the intellect produced nothing but errors. A few of these proved to be useful and helped to preserve the species: those who hit upon or inherited these had better luck in their struggle for themselves and their progeny. Such erroneous articles of faith... include the following: that there are things, substances, bodies; that a thing is what it appears to be; that our will is free; that what is good for me is also good in itself.
from Nietzsche's The Gay Science, s.110, Walter Kaufmann transl..



Origin of the logical.-- How did logic come into existence in man's head? Certainly out of illogic, whose realm originally must have been immense. Innumerable beings who made inferences in a way different from ours perished; for all that, their ways might have been truer. Those, for example, who did not know how to find often enough what is "equal" as regards both nourishment and hostile animals--those, in other words, who subsumed things too slowly and cautiously--were favored with a lesser probability of survival than those who guessed immediately upon encountering similar instances that they must be equal. The dominant tendency, however, to treat as equal what is merely similar--an illogical tendency, for nothing is really equal--is what first created any basis for logic.
In order that the concept of substance could originate--which is indispensible for logic although in the strictest sense nothing real corresponds to it--it was likewise necessary that for a long time one did not see or perceive the changes in things. The beings that did not see so precisely had an advantage over those who saw everything "in flux." At bottom, every high degree of caution in making inferences and every skeptical tendency constitute a great danger for life. No living beings would have survived if the opposite tendency--to affirm rather than suspend judgement, to err and make up things rather than wait, to assent rather than negate, to pass judgement rather than be just-- had not been bred to the point where it became extraordinarily strong.
from Nietzsche's The Gay Science, s.111, Walter Kaufmann transl..



Cause and effect: such a duality probably never exists; in truth we are confronted by a continuum out of which we isolate a couple of pieces, just as we perceive motion only as isolated points and then infer it without ever actually seeing it. The suddenness with which many effects stand out misleads us; actually, it is sudden only for us. In this moment of suddenness there are an infinite number of processes which elude us. An intellect that could see cause and effect as a continuum and a flux and not, as we do, in terms of an arbitrary division and dismemberment, would repudiate the concept of cause and effect and deny all conditionality.
from Nietzsche's The Gay Science, s.112, Walter Kaufmann transl..



To renounce belief in one's ego, to deny one's own "reality" -- what a triumph! not merely over the senses, over appearance, but a much higher kind of triumph, a violation and cruelty against reason -- a voluptuous pleasure that reaches its height when the ascetic self-contempt and self-mockery of reason declares: "there is a realm of truth and being, but reason is excluded from it!"
But precisely because we seek knowledge, let us not be ungrateful to such resolute reversals of accustomed perspectives and valuations with which the spirit has, with apparent mischievousness and futility, raged against itself for so long: to see differently in this way for once, to want to see differently, is no small discipline and preparation for its future "objectivity" -- the latter understood not as "contemplation without interest" (which is a nonsensical absurdity), but as the ability to control one's Pro and Con and to dispose of them, so that one knows how to employ a variety of perspectives and affective interpretations in the service of knowledge.
Henceforth, my dear philosophers, let us be on guard against the dangerous old conceptual fiction that posited a "pure, will-less, painless, timeless knowing subject"; let us guard against the snares of such contradictory concepts as "pure reason," absolute spirituality," "knowledge in itself": these always demand that we should think of an eye that is completely unthinkable, an eye turned in no particular direction, in which the active and interpreting forces, through which alone seeing becomes seeing something, are supposed to be lacking; these always demand of the eye an absurdity and a nonsense. There is only a perspective seeing, only a perspective "knowing"; and the more affects we allow to speak about one thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we can use to observe one thing, the more complete will our "concept" of this thing, our "objectivity," be. But to eliminate the will altogether, to suspend each and every affect, supposing we were capable of this -- what would that mean but to castrate the intellect?
from Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals, s III.12, Walter Kaufmann transl.

each truth is true untill proven not to be truth ,so untill proven untrue it is truth
In life's wilderness,
Choked by the weeds of error -
Bloom of beauty: truth.


Truth ...
“Is the opposite of lies.” “What is truth but what we believe to be truth?” “I don't believe that there's one truth. There are so many different people, and there are so many different ways you can look at things. I don't see how there could be just one truth.”
Last edited by quandary121; Jun 27th, 2008 at 04:48 PM..
 
quandary121
#30
One mans truth is anothers untruth, to say something is true, is to go along with the flow, or the crowd, years ago the world was concidered flat, this was seen as the truth, untill another ,more proveable truth was investegated ,the truth is what you believe to be true, regardless of whether you are in fact informed as to the validity of the truth that is known at the time of your understanding that is .if you believe it to be true it is (for you that is).!
 

Similar Threads

17
Is there an absolute truth ?
by china | Aug 8th, 2009
42
What's the absolute best beer?
by In Between Man | Nov 14th, 2008
26
Absolute Conundrum - West vs. East
by OpnSrc | Mar 29th, 2006
no new posts