What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[chaz wyman]

There is no 'the truth'. If there were no people then there would be no truth, just a cold and unconcerned universe.
The truth is 'out there' is false.
All truth is within, a one person's truth is another's untruth.
The 'Truth just is' does not floor, it is flawed.
This falsehood is of recent coin.

You're incorrect, the truth exists, especially, without us, as humans distort the truth for their own selfish reasons.

No! You're incorrect. I said there is no "The Truth". There is no kind of truth of ANY kind without humans.
If you think there is then tell me where it exists!



You're confusing the human perception of truth with truth itself. This yields "beliefs." which have nothing to do with "truths."

ANd you are confusing an Ideal Form of an Idea with a real thing.
You do know this is a philosophy forum don't you?


"If there were no people..." Then the "truth" would be that there were no people. There are people, so the "truth" is that there are people.

SO now you are saying that truth is dependant on people, when you have already said that it exists regardless of their view!!
Make up you mind please!


"A cold and unconcerned universe" is part of the "Truth."

According to humans. BUt it would not even be cold without the sense of human warmth to contrast. You really don't get any of this do you?


That is, if your assumption, that in fact, it is cold and unconcerned, is in fact, the "truth." I would argue that cold is ambiguous as it's relative and that the thought of the possibility of universal concern, is still being considered, with no conclusion in sight.

I never said "The truth is 'out there'" Your confusing my words with your favorite TV series. The Truth is EVERYWHERE!

Prove it!

I never said there was a "the Truth" but their is the "truth."

The truth is without, belief is within.

Empty Words!

"The 'Truth just is' does not floor..." Here, i assume that you just misunderstood my meaning. It was the fact that I saw it here that floored me not the statement itself. Take a little more time in your reading. Is English your second language?

No, is English your second language? Don't you know a pun when you see one, idiot!

The rest of the moronic bullshit snipped

[SpheresOfBalance]

There is no 'the truth'. If there were no people then there would be no truth, just a cold and unconcerned universe.
The truth is 'out there' is false.
All truth is within, a one person's truth is another's untruth.
The 'Truth just is' does not floor, it is flawed.
This falsehood is of recent coin.

You're incorrect, the truth exists, especially, without us, as humans distort the truth for their own selfish reasons.

No! You're incorrect. I said there is no "The Truth". There is no kind of truth of ANY kind without humans. If you think there is then tell me where it exists!
You should read before you make comment, because asking a question that has already been answered tends to make one look like a fool.

You're confusing the human perception of truth with truth itself. This yields "beliefs." which have nothing to do with "truths."

ANd you are confusing an Ideal Form of an Idea with a real thing. You do know this is a philosophy forum don't you?
Here you're saying that a real thing cannot possibly be in ideal form. Who is to say what perfection is. I say that all that is truth (real) is perfect while human belief is not. Our apparent differences says nothing about them not being philosophical. The subject matter does, however.

"If there were no people..." Then the "truth" would be that there were no people. There are people, so the "truth" is that there are people.

SO now you are saying that truth is dependant on people, when you have already said that it exists regardless of their view!!
Make up you mind please!
Here you really look like a fool. The subject matter was people, the same could be said for anything, e.g., cars. Clearly, your self proclaimed depth, is merely your allusion, or is that Illusion; both in this particular case.

"A cold and unconcerned universe" is part of the "Truth."

According to humans. BUt it would not even be cold without the sense of human warmth to contrast. You really don't get any of this do you?
At this point I feel like I'm whipping a pup. I've already mentioned relativity. I'm sorry your comprehension is so challenged!

That is, if your assumption, that in fact, it is cold and unconcerned, is in fact, the "truth." I would argue that cold is ambiguous as it's relative and that the thought of the possibility of universal concern, is still being considered, with no conclusion in sight.

I never said "The truth is 'out there'" Your confusing my words with your favorite TV series. The Truth is EVERYWHERE!

Prove it!
What a feeble side step! My point doesn't require the burden of proof anymore than yours does. Prove that it's not!

I never said there was a "the Truth" but their is the "truth."

The truth is without, belief is within.

Empty Words!
Only for an empty mind

"The 'Truth just is' does not floor..." Here, i assume that you just misunderstood my meaning. It was the fact that I saw it here that floored me not the statement itself. Take a little more time in your reading. Is English your second language?

No, is English your second language? Don't you know a pun when you see one, idiot!
I try to be very literal. If in fact you made a pun I failed to see it. However failing to realize an intended pun has no bearing on intellect, only focus.

The rest of the moronic bullshit snipped
Your crassness says more about your character than it does mine. I "truly" feel sorry for a boy hiding behind his keyboard. It's kind of pathetic.

Let me know if you ever want to seriously argue Truth. If you grew up a bit, it might be interesting. Notice I said "might!"

[chaz wyman]

Let me know if you ever want to seriously argue Truth. If you grew up a bit, it might be interesting. Notice I said "might!"

You've only been on board for 2 days. You have had a mild challenge to your basic assumptions and you react like that.
I doubt you are going to last long.
You would not know the truth if it hit you in the face like a wet fish.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Let me know if you ever want to seriously argue Truth. If you grew up a bit, it might be interesting. Notice I said "might!"

You've only been on board for 2 days. You have had a mild challenge to your basic assumptions and you react like that.
I doubt you are going to last long.
You would not know the truth if it hit you in the face like a wet fish.

My length of time on board says nothing of importance. My length of time on earth, particular life experiences and IQ say it all.

I have read many of your replies before posting and know well your laughable elitist posturing contrasted by your inability to control yourself when faced with challenge. Your frustration obviously overwhelms you. I suspected you'd be the first to challenge me, as you seem to strut around like a peacock or maybe peahen is more appropriate. Your demeanor would seem to be that of a child throwing a temper tantrum. It would seem that your child has run amuck with twisted direction from the parent and no adult resolution whatsoever.

I have lasted for 54 years and it would seem that only I have the power to end my existence. My time of lasting here is wholly my choice. Unless of course uncontrollable fear grips a mod causing belief that somehow my version of truth will undermine the very foundations of this forum of debate. Over the years I've trusted in the definitive moderator with their ability to remain unbiased and "truly" balance dispute. I believe this is especially true of a philosophy forum mod.

If you think that anything you or anyone else could say could scare me away, you're sadly mistaken. The only way I'll leave here, of my own accord, is if I become board.

With so many schools of thought on truth, it's purely a subjective matter. And nothing says I have to completely agree with any one of them in the first place.

It would seem that you're the fish.

Initially, I came here looking for someone, Obviously, that has nothing to do with you.

[chaz wyman]

Let me know if you ever want to seriously argue Truth. If you grew up a bit, it might be interesting. Notice I said "might!"

You've only been on board for 2 days. You have had a mild challenge to your basic assumptions and you react like that.
I doubt you are going to last long.
You would not know the truth if it hit you in the face like a wet fish.

My length of time on board says nothing of importance. My length of time on earth, particular life experiences and IQ say it all.

I have read many of your replies before posting and know well your laughable elitist posturing contrasted by your inability to control yourself when faced with challenge. Your frustration obviously overwhelms you. I suspected you'd be the first to challenge me, as you seem to strut around like a peacock or maybe peahen is more appropriate. Your demeanor would seem to be that of a child throwing a temper tantrum. It would seem that your child has run amuck with twisted direction from the parent and no adult resolution whatsoever.

I have lasted for 54 years and it would seem that only I have the power to end my existence. My time of lasting here is wholly my choice. Unless of course uncontrollable fear grips a mod causing belief that somehow my version of truth will undermine the very foundations of this forum of debate. Over the years I've trusted in the definitive moderator with their ability to remain unbiased and "truly" balance dispute. I believe this is especially true of a philosophy forum mod.

If you think that anything you or anyone else could say could scare me away, you're sadly mistaken. The only way I'll leave here, of my own accord, is if I become board.

With so many schools of thought on truth, it's purely a subjective matter. And nothing says I have to completely agree with any one of them in the first place.

It would seem that you're the fish.

Initially, I came here looking for someone, Obviously, that has nothing to do with you.

54 years of an unexamined life is but a fart in the wind.
I am completely amazed that a person can have been on the planet for so long and still have the naive faith in the idea of truth which you demonstrate. Your childlike faith represents a view of truth that went out of date with Plato. I suggest you read some philosophy and get out of the cotton wool your Mummy put you in.

The idea the the truth is 'out there' is quite frankly idiotic and can only origin from a person that has never tried to unpack his own assumptions. Maybe you have been watching too much US TV? You do realise that this is a philosophy web-site?

[SpheresOfBalance]

SpheresOfBalance had written:
"Let me know if you ever want to seriously argue Truth. If you grew up a bit, it might be interesting. Notice I said "might!""

chaz wyman responded:
You've only been on board for 2 days. You have had a mild challenge to your basic assumptions and you react like that. I doubt you are going to last long.
You would not know the truth if it hit you in the face like a wet fish.

SpheresOfBalance responded:
My length of time on board says nothing of importance. My length of time on earth, particular life experiences and IQ say it all.

I have read many of your replies before posting and know well your laughable elitist posturing contrasted by your inability to control yourself when faced with challenge. Your frustration obviously overwhelms you. I suspected you'd be the first to challenge me, as you seem to strut around like a peacock or maybe peahen is more appropriate. Your demeanor would seem to be that of a child throwing a temper tantrum. It would seem that your child has run amuck with twisted direction from the parent and no adult resolution whatsoever.

I have lasted for 54 years and it would seem that only I have the power to end my existence. My time of lasting here is wholly my choice. Unless of course uncontrollable fear grips a mod causing belief that somehow my version of truth will undermine the very foundations of this forum of debate. Over the years I've trusted in the definitive moderator with their ability to remain unbiased and "truly" balance dispute. I believe this is especially true of a philosophy forum mod.

If you think that anything you or anyone else could say could scare me away, you're sadly mistaken. The only way I'll leave here, of my own accord, is if I become board.

With so many schools of thought on truth, it's purely a subjective matter. And nothing says I have to completely agree with any one of them in the first place.

It would seem that you're the fish.

Initially, I came here looking for someone, Obviously, that has nothing to do with you.

chaz wyman responded:
54 years of an unexamined life is but a fart in the wind.
I am completely amazed that a person can have been on the planet for so long and still have the naive faith in the idea of truth which you demonstrate. Your childlike faith represents a view of truth that went out of date with Plato. I suggest you read some philosophy and get out of the cotton wool your Mummy put you in.

The idea the the truth is 'out there' is quite frankly idiotic and can only origin from a person that has never tried to unpack his own assumptions. Maybe you have been watching too much US TV? You do realise that this is a philosophy web-site?

SpheresOfBalance responded:
Either you've assumed that I've bought into a preconceived idea which is full of human contamination and that I've projected this falsehood upon reality, because you're incapable of listening, your mind is closed, you can't see past your nose, or you're a religious zealot playing your part in a disinformation campaign designed to save your belief from "those scientists."

Because the only problem "real" philosophers have with truth is it's purity, and I've taken measures to ensure it.

The truth is everywhere, and in fact is one of, if not the, primary pursuit of Philosophy by definition. Here's the first definition of philosophy as per the "Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2011." which states: "the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct." Notice that the first object of "rational investigation" is "truth" and it's in the first definition.

That's Curious; when was it that you formally studied Philosophy, if ever?

As you condemn the pursuit of truth, in the name of Philosophy, you condemn Philosophy itself. It would seem that the term "Philosopher Chaz Wyman" is in fact an oxymoron!

You do realize this is a Philosophy forum don't you chaz?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.






To practice philosophy you must be brave.



I'm not talking about reading philosophy.



I'm talking about being a philosopher.



You must be strong.



You must be brave.






A thirst for truth is essential.



You must respect truth.


You must start with the truth in order to make a serious attempt to find greater truth.




Truth is found in the simplest of things.






You must begin with the truth...then we can attempt to answer your other questions. Then we have a right to pursue, to become, a greater truth.












............................................







Don't try to take too much at one time.


I don't think you are ready yet.




Good luck to you.









.

[chaz wyman]

SpheresOfBalance had written:
"Let me know if you ever want to seriously argue Truth. If you grew up a bit, it might be interesting. Notice I said "might!""

chaz wyman responded:
You've only been on board for 2 days. You have had a mild challenge to your basic assumptions and you react like that. I doubt you are going to last long.
You would not know the truth if it hit you in the face like a wet fish.

SpheresOfBalance responded:
My length of time on board says nothing of importance. My length of time on earth, particular life experiences and IQ say it all.

I have read many of your replies before posting and know well your laughable elitist posturing contrasted by your inability to control yourself when faced with challenge. Your frustration obviously overwhelms you. I suspected you'd be the first to challenge me, as you seem to strut around like a peacock or maybe peahen is more appropriate. Your demeanor would seem to be that of a child throwing a temper tantrum. It would seem that your child has run amuck with twisted direction from the parent and no adult resolution whatsoever.

I have lasted for 54 years and it would seem that only I have the power to end my existence. My time of lasting here is wholly my choice. Unless of course uncontrollable fear grips a mod causing belief that somehow my version of truth will undermine the very foundations of this forum of debate. Over the years I've trusted in the definitive moderator with their ability to remain unbiased and "truly" balance dispute. I believe this is especially true of a philosophy forum mod.

If you think that anything you or anyone else could say could scare me away, you're sadly mistaken. The only way I'll leave here, of my own accord, is if I become board.

With so many schools of thought on truth, it's purely a subjective matter. And nothing says I have to completely agree with any one of them in the first place.

It would seem that you're the fish.

Initially, I came here looking for someone, Obviously, that has nothing to do with you.

chaz wyman responded:
54 years of an unexamined life is but a fart in the wind.
I am completely amazed that a person can have been on the planet for so long and still have the naive faith in the idea of truth which you demonstrate. Your childlike faith represents a view of truth that went out of date with Plato. I suggest you read some philosophy and get out of the cotton wool your Mummy put you in.

The idea the the truth is 'out there' is quite frankly idiotic and can only origin from a person that has never tried to unpack his own assumptions. Maybe you have been watching too much US TV? You do realise that this is a philosophy web-site?

SpheresOfBalance responded:
Either you've assumed that I've bought into a preconceived idea which is full of human contamination and that I've projected this falsehood upon reality, because you're incapable of listening, your mind is closed, you can't see past your nose, or you're a religious zealot playing your part in a disinformation campaign designed to save your belief from "those scientists."

Because the only problem "real" philosophers have with truth is it's purity, and I've taken measures to ensure it.

The truth is everywhere, and in fact is one of, if not the, primary pursuit of Philosophy by definition. Here's the first definition of philosophy as per the "Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2011." which states: "the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct." Notice that the first object of "rational investigation" is "truth" and it's in the first definition.

That's Curious; when was it that you formally studied Philosophy, if ever?

As you condemn the pursuit of truth, in the name of Philosophy, you condemn Philosophy itself. It would seem that the term "Philosopher Chaz Wyman" is in fact an oxymoron!

You do realize this is a Philosophy forum don't you chaz?

You are a bit of a disappointment.
Your attacks are like being savaged by a dead sheep.

[lancek4]

.
(I didnt go through the whole 29 pages to see whats already been hashed, but heres my contribution for what I have looked over)

To practice philosophy you must be brave.

Indeed; here we go.
I assert there is "A Truth". In the beginning of this thread someone said, I believe you Bill, agreeing with Chaz, about how "Truth IS". Ahhhh so peaceful. Ok...

If Truth is, just IS, I take that to mean something about a zen kinda moment, like "Be Here Now", but also that in the world, "out there" so to speak, Truth, a statement of knowledge that encompasses the wholeness of existance and/or reality. Thus, Chaz says, there is no Truth, in the Big Grand sense. And even in the little local sense truth seems to avoid itself upon scrutiny. Ok great.

But then what is Truth? and you say: Truth ISssssssssssss.... aaaaaahhhhhh... ooooooooohhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmm.....
so great. (and please, do not assume that because I make fun if this 'truth', this 'practice', this 'zen' acceptance-practice, that it isnt somehow effective and truthful for me too - but I do not rest with such platitude. i can have it and still move beyond it, investigate it without disrupting it.)

What I suppose this means is that truth is relative. But then if truth is relative, and this is true, then to say that truth is relative is a false statement; it contradicts itself.

This fact, that discourse, our way of knowing, contradicts itself upon scrutiny, reveals that to say "Truth is" as if pointing to some 'true' fact of existence/reality is a response to the aparent futility that shows itself when we try to reduce what we know to a (big T) Truth.

The fact of our experiencing is that we function upon 'truths' of reality; our experience depends upon coming upon 'truths'. The reaction to this contradiction (that is, that what we intuitively come upon as true is based in a knowledge that is inherently false) is futility, and it is expressed exactly as: i give up: Truth ISssssssssss...aaaaahhhh.. ooooohhhhmm.

I submit that to stop with 'Truth Is' is to assert a faith in a type of reality.

Where investigation stops that is where the Offense lay. The offence occurs because of the apparent falisty (contradiction) of the knoweldge by which we gain truth in reality. This cannot be tolerated for what is Real. Thus the effective reaction, as determined by our well thought out psychology, is denial; it can only be tolerated through denial. When something about us, say, our truth,or that which gains for us our identity, is confronted in a way that is intolerable to us, we deny it.
Denial is not knowing the truth; it is not an assertion that it is not true:
denial is not knowing the truth: the individual in denial does not know of that truth of him or her self. He/she is in denial.

The effective manifestation of denial for that individual is an establishment of an 'alternate' truth that is, for that individual, "the Truth"; this Truth is thus an object of faith because it is a truth that is not really true. And beyond the effective object of faith is that which exists to grant the Truth of Reality, and there lay: the "Truth (just) is" platitude.

THIS, I submit, is "The Truth": The relative truth of the 'Truth Is' reality is a reality based in denial of the limitations of knowledge. Hence: we can form a General Theory which takes into account the wholeness of Reality: The Truth.

I'm not talking about reading philosophy.

Doing philsosophy is not stopping. It is not zenning out and then finding alternate worlds or planes or whatever. It is not resorting to a poetic refrain from thought.
Thought encompasses all of that which is real. There is no moment which is not 'contained' by thought. Any such moment is neagted by the thought which encompasses it.
If, when you think that you are not thinking and just experiencing, you think you have attained or experienced something that was not thought, the very thought that you have had such an experience contradicts the supposed fact of having such a 'thoughtless' experience.

I'm talking about being a philosopher.

exactly. cringe at nothing. investigate every thing including how and in what terms the investigation is being enacted.

You must be strong.

exactly.

You must be brave.

exactly; be willing, even when in fear. RISK to BE that which IS NOT.

A thirst for truth is essential.

this is True; it is not 'just is'..

You must respect truth.

the greatest respect for Truth is to question it.

You must start with the truth in order to make a serious attempt to find greater truth.

when the truth is manifest, it is apparent.

Truth is found in the simplest of things.

as this expresses the most complex of things


One must Be true in order to question that which is.
[/size]




JESUS CHRIST !!!!

What is stoppong us from seeing the truth is that which already contains us in truth.

















.

[lancek4]

SpheresOfBalance had written:
"Let me know if you ever want to seriously argue Truth. If you grew up a bit, it might be interesting. Notice I said "might!""

chaz wyman responded:
You've only been on board for 2 days. You have had a mild challenge to your basic assumptions and you react like that. I doubt you are going to last long.
You would not know the truth if it hit you in the face like a wet fish.

SpheresOfBalance responded:
My length of time on board says nothing of importance. My length of time on earth, particular life experiences and IQ say it all.

I have read many of your replies before posting and know well your laughable elitist posturing contrasted by your inability to control yourself when faced with challenge. Your frustration obviously overwhelms you. I suspected you'd be the first to challenge me, as you seem to strut around like a peacock or maybe peahen is more appropriate. Your demeanor would seem to be that of a child throwing a temper tantrum. It would seem that your child has run amuck with twisted direction from the parent and no adult resolution whatsoever.

I have lasted for 54 years and it would seem that only I have the power to end my existence. My time of lasting here is wholly my choice. Unless of course uncontrollable fear grips a mod causing belief that somehow my version of truth will undermine the very foundations of this forum of debate. Over the years I've trusted in the definitive moderator with their ability to remain unbiased and "truly" balance dispute. I believe this is especially true of a philosophy forum mod.

If you think that anything you or anyone else could say could scare me away, you're sadly mistaken. The only way I'll leave here, of my own accord, is if I become board.

With so many schools of thought on truth, it's purely a subjective matter. And nothing says I have to completely agree with any one of them in the first place.

It would seem that you're the fish.

Initially, I came here looking for someone, Obviously, that has nothing to do with you.

chaz wyman responded:
54 years of an unexamined life is but a fart in the wind.
I am completely amazed that a person can have been on the planet for so long and still have the naive faith in the idea of truth which you demonstrate. Your childlike faith represents a view of truth that went out of date with Plato. I suggest you read some philosophy and get out of the cotton wool your Mummy put you in.

The idea the the truth is 'out there' is quite frankly idiotic and can only origin from a person that has never tried to unpack his own assumptions. Maybe you have been watching too much US TV? You do realise that this is a philosophy web-site?

SpheresOfBalance responded:
Either you've assumed that I've bought into a preconceived idea which is full of human contamination and that I've projected this falsehood upon reality, because you're incapable of listening, your mind is closed, you can't see past your nose, or you're a religious zealot playing your part in a disinformation campaign designed to save your belief from "those scientists."

Because the only problem "real" philosophers have with truth is it's purity, and I've taken measures to ensure it.

The truth is everywhere, and in fact is one of, if not the, primary pursuit of Philosophy by definition. Here's the first definition of philosophy as per the "Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2011." which states: "the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct." Notice that the first object of "rational investigation" is "truth" and it's in the first definition.

That's Curious; when was it that you formally studied Philosophy, if ever?

As you condemn the pursuit of truth, in the name of Philosophy, you condemn Philosophy itself. It would seem that the term "Philosopher Chaz Wyman" is in fact an oxymoron!

You do realize this is a Philosophy forum don't you chaz?

This whole post exchange is an example of my post (above). Insults aside, you are both saying (arguing) the same thing (understanding of reality) but contradicting each other in the activity because the terms each of you use have different 'truth-meanings' as apprehended by the other person. Beautiful.
I identify this as: each of you, individually, is oriented upon the object of knowledge that is True. In discussion, the orientations defy each other as polemical because of the truth-value each of you has; even though you both are expressing the same 'Truth' of the 'reality' of the matter, your 'faiths' deny each other. It is a 'religious' battle you evidence here.

[lancek4]

internal server error

[lancek4]

And here is another, maybe even better example:

There is no 'the truth'. If there were no people then there would be no truth, just a cold and unconcerned universe.
The truth is 'out there' is false.
(especially this:)
All truth is within, a one person's truth is another's untruth.
(and here is the perfect set up for the infinitlely regressive "the truth is not true" as well as the polemical misunderstanding that both would readily admit if not for the argument:)
[/color]The 'Truth just is' does not floor, it is flawed.
This falsehood is of recent coin.

You're incorrect, the truth exists, especially, without us, as humans distort the truth for their own selfish reasons.

No! You're incorrect. I said there is no "The Truth". There is no kind of truth of ANY kind without humans. If you think there is then tell me where it exists!
You should read before you make comment, because asking a question that has already been answered tends to make one look like a fool.

You're confusing the human perception of truth with truth itself. This yields "beliefs." which have nothing to do with "truths."

ANd you are confusing an Ideal Form of an Idea with a real thing. You do know this is a philosophy forum don't you?
Here you're saying that a real thing cannot possibly be in ideal form. Who is to say what perfection is. I say that all that is truth (real) is perfect while human belief is not. Our apparent differences says nothing about them not being philosophical. The subject matter does, however.

"If there were no people..." Then the "truth" would be that there were no people. There are people, so the "truth" is that there are people.

SO now you are saying that truth is dependant on people, when you have already said that it exists regardless of their view!!
Make up you mind please!
Here you really look like a fool. The subject matter was people, the same could be said for anything, e.g., cars. Clearly, your self proclaimed depth, is merely your allusion, or is that Illusion; both in this particular case.

"A cold and unconcerned universe" is part of the "Truth."

According to humans. BUt it would not even be cold without the sense of human warmth to contrast. You really don't get any of this do you?
At this point I feel like I'm whipping a pup. I've already mentioned relativity. I'm sorry your comprehension is so challenged!

That is, if your assumption, that in fact, it is cold and unconcerned, is in fact, the "truth." I would argue that cold is ambiguous as it's relative and that the thought of the possibility of universal concern, is still being considered, with no conclusion in sight.

I never said "The truth is 'out there'" Your confusing my words with your favorite TV series. The Truth is EVERYWHERE!

Prove it!
What a feeble side step! My point doesn't require the burden of proof anymore than yours does. Prove that it's not!

I never said there was a "the Truth" but their is the "truth."

The truth is without, belief is within.

Empty Words!
Only for an empty mind

"The 'Truth just is' does not floor..." Here, i assume that you just misunderstood my meaning. It was the fact that I saw it here that floored me not the statement itself. Take a little more time in your reading. Is English your second language?

No, is English your second language? Don't you know a pun when you see one, idiot!
I try to be very literal. If in fact you made a pun I failed to see it. However failing to realize an intended pun has no bearing on intellect, only focus.

The rest of the moronic bullshit snipped
Your crassness says more about your character than it does mine. I "truly" feel sorry for a boy hiding behind his keyboard. It's kind of pathetic.

[/quote]

It seems this is where Hermuenetics stems from.
Together it might be seen that the "Truth' they both are searching for in discussion eludes them both because of the 'truth' both of the individually rely upon. Both of them together, each in thier own Truth but together creating the polemic, comprises the denied reality.

[chaz wyman]

And here is another, maybe even better example:[
It seems this is where Hermuenetics stems from.
Together it might be seen that the "Truth' they both are searching for in discussion eludes them both because of the 'truth' both of the individually rely upon. Both of them together, each in thier own Truth but together creating the polemic, comprises the denied reality.

This is not helpful.


It's pretty - but not helpful.

[SpheresOfBalance]

What my point has been from the very beginning is that Truth simply is. You cannot possibly disprove truth. Truth never changes and is exactly the same for everyone despite their knowledge. The truth begets reality. It exists without humans whatsoever. Truth is the aim of all human pursuits in knowledge, however we have only found some of the truths that exist. Once verified, truths yield facts, such that all facts are truths, however not all truths are facts.

I would think that it's obvious by now, that I lean towards the correspondence school of thought. However I am not necessarily tied to any particular theory.

For instance, it has always been the truth that a live, healthy, human body has an endoskeleton, is made up primarily of H2O and that H2O is the formula for water. Today these are facts, however there was a time when they were mere belief, and prior to that, they were unrecognized altogether. In all that time however, they were truths.

What I call the universal truth, is what Physicists, Cosmologists, Astronomers, Philosophers as well as others will be able to see once "the theory of everything" is verified as fact. It could also be called the ultimate truth, because it incorporates all the other truths.

The really sad fact is that unfortunately all humans have, do or will, lie in the face of truth!

[lancek4]

And here is another, maybe even better example:[
It seems this is where Hermuenetics stems from.
Together it might be seen that the "Truth' they both are searching for in discussion eludes them both because of the 'truth' both of the individually rely upon. Both of them together, each in thier own Truth but together creating the polemic, comprises the denied reality.

This is not helpful.


It's pretty - but not helpful.

wow, its pretty? Im not sure what that means. do you mean I seemed to have laid out a good argument and drawn sound conclusions from my premises and given examples, but it is not helpful in some way?
What do you mean - (Im laughing because its a funny thing you said right here) - ?

Or do you mean that I have laid a load of crap on the thread (but then you wouldnt have said it is pretty).

what are you meaning here Chaz?

I was saying that you guys are talking about the same thing. making the same point. No?

Or did you say it is pretty because of the nice font color I used?