Justice

Post Reply New Topic

Awesomelyglorious

Truth is in the Eye of its Beholder. How ever You come across it it will in the end be Your truth in the end. That is what I have been saying all alone. It does not matter to Me if You want or need to define or reach it the way You do. Science is only one way of getting to truth in the end. My way is no better or worse than Yours. Knowledge and Understanding come from within if it Scientific or Spiritual what does it matter in the end. What matters that You will come across it in Your Own Way. The Scientific Way can not Yet explain My Way. Maybe in the Future it maybe able to do so. Maybe Science that is working on a Theory of Everything one day will be able to explain even God then in a Scientific Way as Well. But until that time this is the Only Way that there is to Explain it in the end.

kevv729
Truth is not in the eye of the beholder because truth by its nature cannot be subjective. Like I said before if truth = a then truth != b... well unless a = b but that would be the same as truth = a. I have never heard of a subjective truth, I have heard of opinions but not subjective truth. It is not MY truth that I would want to find, it is THE truth. I am not really different enough from everyone else to have my own individualized truth, I was born like any other man and I will die like any other. Therefore the forces that dictate my life are similar if not the same to all other men and truths pertaining to that will be similar if not the same.

You argue that your spirituality give you truth but does it give you proof? An unproven truth is as useful as an unsupported bridge. It looks unsafe and lacking stability and it probably is. Certainly not everything is supported by science or logic and some leaps of faith must be taken but truth in its full entirety should not be a total leap of faith. I could take enough drugs to kill a small horse and then have visions that we are descended from a race of divine hippos but that does not constitute any proof despite how deeply meaningful these visions were.

Awesomelyglorious

But it is in the Eye of the Beholder, You are Beholding it in your Scientific Way are You not. Maybe that is a Poor choose of Words. You look at the Truth as being a Absolute that being said there is nothing wrong with that either. You say it can not be in the Eye of the Beholder because that would make Subjective, Yes in a Scientific Way it would. Spiritual Truth Scientific Truth maybe one day be able to be Explained Only when the Theory of Everything can yet Explain it. Science has come up with some Theories over the years, though can they Explain it all yet No. You want it laid out in Black and White, though Science is Black and White by using the methods it has today, it still can not Explain HOW COME, truly Science has not even gotten that far Yet.

Yes We do have Subjective truths out there and Humans have been Living them from the beings of time. But You have to Remember We are All INDIVIDUALS, do two Individuals see it the same NO. Why not that is the way We are Our Life Experiences are Ours Alone, We only can share Our Lives but the Experiences are Ours Alone. They maybe Similar but never truly the same. Even if two people saw the same thing happen, at the same and place, if you asked them what they saw there would be differences in what they both said they saw. Being a INDIVIDUAL is just that. We are what We are in the end. Science can not truly yet Explain this, but it does try too.

Faith is like Science, what do I mean by that, this is what I mean by that. Do You have Faith that Science will be able to Explain all that there is one day. You would probably say Yes would You not. Humans need Faith in what they truly believe in. That is why the Truth is right in Front of You. You have made the Truth Your Own. By using Science to Explain it for You do You not. You have taken that Leap of Faith with Science have You not. You could take some drugs to give You visions and You might see many things. How meaningful Your Life is, is Up to You Alone Nobody can make Your Life Meaningful but You in the end. Whatever You make Your Life is Up to You and You Alone. You can Only Decide what is Right or Wrong for You. You must have Faith in Yourself.

I have Lived My Life on How I seen the thing in My Life. That is why it is My Life and not Yours. My Faith is different than Yours is, is it not. My Faith in what I believe in is what gives Me the Truth. As Your Faith that gives You the Truth. That is Absolutely the Truth in the end.

Well, I am using logic to reach a point. If you defy logic then you can state that anything is true. Logic is one of the major tools of philosophy and I think this existential nonsense is nonsense. Reject logic all you like but it ultimately binds existence. It is interesting to state that even though scientists cannot say from a scientific view point HOW COME, the truth behind HOW COME can still be logically debated. I am not a pure scientist, I believe in rationality which science is a part of, but even thoughts about the abstract (beyond what we know to exist) can be logically debated.

You say that I am in search of a theory of everything but have all philosophers that use knowledge and logic tend to search for a scientific theory of everything? Heck, I have heard that Nietzsche, a philosopher that was a forerunner of existentialism, wanted his belief in the will to power to be the theory of everything.

There is no such thing as a subjective truth. True- Consistent with fact or reality. A definition that leaves little room for subjectivity as fact is cold and objective and reality is what is real. The argument for a subjective truth is ultimately a mutilation of the word known as truth. Individuals see things similarly, most 2 individuals will see the same cat, the same dog and any discrepency can often be explained by life experiences and genetic dispositions. A bush loving fanatic who is the child of strong republicans/uber-christians is understandable because there are environmental factors and there may even be genetic factors that led to this. However, I don't want this to turn into an argument of determinism over free-will. Logic explains the differences between opinion.

I have no faith that science will provide all answers. You have simply been calling me a scientist because I stated that I liked the sciences in order to give explanation for my emphasis on logic. Humans may need faith but simply having faith does not mean truth. Think of the many people who have died in suicide cults led by some lunatic. Were those true? No, they could not be.

Ultimately, I think that your philosophy relies on the overemphasis of human difference. A different philosophy hardly means anything, nor does any other odd individual trait. In the end people are people, they all have traits in common and all were forced in this life by the same force and they will all leave this life as well. In truth, I think that your assertion of your philosophy over my philosophy is a falsehood. I reject the subjectivism supported by your philosophy and I do not believe in existentialism. Truth is truth, there is nothing more to it and this cannot coexist with your philosophy because if my truth is that there is a total absolute truth then there cannot be any subjective truth because of the fact that 2 opposite things cannot be concurrently true.

Awesomelyglorious

Logic is a good thing to have in ones Life don't get Me wrong. Even I believe in Logic too. Yes Humans have used Logic to explain or to try to Explain everything that is all around Us. This is to Me just existential experience I am trying to Live, for even I am Living in the here and now. So even I don't reject Logic in the end either. Whatever Views We both have are what Our Lives have yet shown Us. HOW COME is a debate that Humans have been having since the beginning of time. I don't think I have call You a Scientist but I know You are using Science and are being very Logical about how You come to Your conclusions in the end. We do know much by using Logic in Our Lives. Logic has taught Us (Humans) much about Life and the Life around Us. Humans have always dealt with Life in Abstract way even how to deal with Life as We see it.

I sorry that if I said that You are in search of a theory when You may not be. When it come to the Science and Theory of Everything I am thinking of it in a Scientific Way. In a Mathematical Way in a True Scientific Way of Understanding Everything. I remember watching some television program on What Theoretical Mathematicians have come up with this Theory of Everything in the end. That is what I was thinking of when talking about the Theory of Everything.

Yes Truth truly can not be subjective. But not all can be totally explained with Logic either in the end too. Even Scientists being a abjectness to what they see for it is only Human to do so.

I have Faith when Logic can not truly explain it totally in the end. That is where I use My Faith to try to go beyond it, where Logic can not truly go.

My philosophy may overemphasis Human Individuality that maybe My AS in the end.

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE. WHATEVER IS THE TRUTH.

Heh, great off topic muses come to mind, but I shall refrain from that at the moment.

As far as capital punishment goes, if the person is guilty, there should be justice. Justice should be done with due respect for the law and for humanity in general, but in the end, it is justice. If that means a murder dies, so be it. If we don't uphold the law for murderers, then people will begin to get away with more and more. That simply cannot happen.

Life is a very valuable thing. But in order for the santification of life to be upheld where it should be, then there needs to be a strict punishment for those who choose to take the life of another innocent person. (Innocent in the fact that it's not war or justice, NOT that the person has never sinned.) The death penalty allows us to keep the value of life where it is.

Also, many criminals who would deserve capital punishment would be worse off living in the streets. If the government did away with the the death penalty, then those prisoners would be getting decent meals, a place to live and all of that at the cost of taxpayer money. That shouldn't happen.

To Ed- if the you don't do anything stupid that the government would want to kill you for, don't worry about being on Death Row. Criminals get away with a quite a bit because it take so much time and effort to prove that the crime that the committed (usually several murders) is enough for them to be placed on Death Row. Basically, if you do something stupid and against the law, there are consequences. That goes for anything. Sometimes the consequences are more severe than other times.

I don't think the death penalty will ever be used to someone who has shoplifted or been caught speeding. Those things just aren't enough to have that much justice. But those people who have been condemned to Death Row have committed crimes that are worthy of capital punishment.

And if you think this is strict, try reading some of the Jewish law in the Old Testament!

Kevv729,
Right, well no apology needed for the whole scientist thing. I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't being lumped unfairly into a category that did not perfectly fit. I have made my arguments through logic and such but so have many philosophers. I may admit that we currently do not have the tools to express everything perfectly as logic but I tend to reject the use of other tools to adequately describe reality. I will admit that people do not use perfect logic or.... possibly they do use logic but a form that they cannot see as the traditional form of logic.

Perhaps in my philosophy there is an overemphasis on logic but that might be my AS in action.

The truth is an unproven idea but for the good of all I hope that it exists.

Whatever, I think that we have both said our points. I just gotta have the final word!! !

Awesomelyglorious

You are right, We have both said Our points, in the end it has been a Good Debate of Ideals too.

I just had to get in a Last Word for sure.

Kevv729
I do agree to some extent with what you said, we have both said our points. It was an interesting debate and the first philosophical debate I have had in quite a while. In the end I realize that I only have one thing left to say. YOU ARE NOT TAKING THE LAST WORD!! !! IT WILL BE MY LAST WORD NOT YOURS!! !!

FOR LAUGHS

I WILL GET THE LAST WORD IN

I AM THE GRAND GOD ALMIGHTY OF THE INTERNET

(Before Your time here at the Wrong Planet)

LETS HOPE WE DON'T NEED TO DEBATE THE LAST WORD

OKAY.

NOO!! !! !
I may have inferior word enlargening abilities due to my inexperience with html but I WILL NOT GIVE UP!! !! !

WE WILL DEBATE THIS LAST WORD! WE WILL DEBATE THIS LAST WORD UNTIL TIME ITSELF STOPS! IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW LONG I MUST FIGHT FOR THIS LAST WORD! I WILL HAVE IT!! !! !

How much are You willing to pay for the last word.

We will just have to see in the end.

"Truth" is measured by perception and perception is always subjective. Truth is in the eyes of the beholder.

"The only thing I know is I know nothing" Socrates

Another aspect of truth is proof of knowledge.
Can any of you give me a proof of knowledge?

Truth is an absolute. Perception and other bias simply mean that people cannot determine what is absolutely true. Just because you were speeding and did not see the tree does not mean it was there. If you perceive something and then evidence comes later that proves that what you perceived was not true then obviously you did not see truth which makes your perception wrong or only part of the story. A schizo's account is generally considered to be untrue as is the account of a person on loads of hallucinogenic drugs. If I get really really high and see a rainbow colored ostrich on a swing that does not mean that there really is a rainbow colored ostrich on a swing despite my perception of it.

Please give your definition of "truth", Awesome. Because clearly, given our varying perceptions, we can't even agree on a single definition. To me, truth is that I see a tree. I see that tree is green. It's so-many feet taller than myself. It smells good if it's a pine tree.

But take another animal with a different visual system, an animal who perhaps does not see the color of a tree as "green", nor is that tree the same size to it as it appears to me. For an elephant it would be much smaller. For an ant, MUCH larger. And there are perhaps animals who find its odor offensive.

To me, "truth" is a measurement of perception. "Fact" is an attempt at a measurement of the outside world. Unfortunately, this, too, is jaded by perception though perhaps a bit less so. If the human mind is involved in the process of assessment, the universe will always be jaded towards the viewer. Which is exactly why science isn't perfect: humans.

*feels our future posts are just going to be reposts of what we've already stated, ne'er the twain shall meet and such*

Meh, nevermind. This will be an endless conversation I bet. I know my definition of truth. I prefer to use the term "fact" more often, but which human kind can't even measure accurately because it, too, is jaded. Truth is inconsequential without someone thinking about it and if someone is thinking about it, it falls into the realm of Perception.

I don't believe in any almighty deities; therefore by my definition, "truth" is as inconstant as a person's opinions. There are constants to the universe. But these do not fall under Truth. They just exist.