The Only Source of Truth?

[regnauld]

---

Your truth is your power.

The truth is the most freeing discovery you can make.

To be free of the fear of death,
to be free of distrust, of limitation,
to be free to be who you really are -
these are the gifts you will receive
by paying the price of introspection and honesty.

Human life is a most difficult classroom
until you learn the simple fact
that your truth is power,
your salvation, your fulfillment,
your purpose and your way.
Once you can truly believe that
life becomes the joyous and abundant garden
that it is meant to be. Peace

[The_Child]

uhh.. what wrong conclusion? how can truth be everywhere and nowhere at the same time?
basic laws of logic, a thing cannot be one and the opposite at the same time.. that's a falsity.. how can something be black and white at the same time? maybe its gray? unless you speak of a third identity, then maybe that's your truth.. in this case, you'd have to define what is not everywhere, and not nowhere at the same time.. every-no-where? hehehe.. this is funny..

anyway, in our universe, as far as i'm concerned, if you say that truth is everywhere and nowhere, you're basically implying that there is no truth, and everything is just false...

uhhh. havent you heard M. Regnauld? "burn your house down" attempting to do Zen, he wants you to burn your house down. (I frankly dont know what Zen has to do with burning)So Burn your house down! Burn your house down! Burn your house down!

You have a fondness with 6th century BCE logic, dont you? and you also presume alot, because your implication does not necessarily flow from your assertion even though you wave the banner of Aristotelian-Scholastic logic.

Everywhere and nowhere. the extreme poles of "spatial" description. Consider spatially locating everywhere, and then you'd realize it would be impossible.

Truth? its there, but not there. How would you frame this in rational terms, Truth is [(not) there ] i dont know if that complicate things.


And M. Renauld accuses me of being "linear' in view.

but if you do burn your house down, that advice didnt came from me i just passed it along. thats from M. Renauld.


cheers.
have a nice day!

[regnauld]

uhhh. havent you heard M. Regnauld? "burn your house down" attempting to do Zen, he wants you to burn your house down. (I frankly dont know what Zen has to do with burning)So Burn your house down! Burn your house down! Burn your house down!

You have a fondness with 6th century BCE logic, dont you? and you also presume alot, because your implication does not necessarily flow from your assertion even though you wave the banner of Aristotelian-Scholastic logic.

Everywhere and nowhere. the extreme poles of "spatial" description. Consider spatially locating everywhere, and then you'd realize it would be impossible.

Truth? its there, but not there. How would you frame this in rational terms, Truth is [(not) there ] i dont know if that complicate things.


And M. Renauld accuses me of being "linear' in view.

but if you do burn your house down, that advice didnt came from me i just passed it along. thats from M. Renauld.


cheers.
have a nice day!

Blame it on me! It was my fault really It was an honest mistake! I lost control of the mouse!!! hahaha.........i love this universe! Im sorry for my demonic accusation!

[The_Child]

OT:

Blame it on me! It was my fault really It was an honest mistake! I lost control of the mouse!!! hahaha.........i love this universe! Im sorry for my demonic accusation!

hehehe. "i love your burn the house down" quote immensely.

[regnauld]

OT:



hehehe. "i love your burn the house down" quote immensely.

yes. It's like burning the intellectual arrogance of our brilliant mind amidst the shadow of fear!

[grovestreet]

be water my friend... hehe

[regnauld]

be water my friend... hehe

I love that from Bruce Lee!

[Hellblazer 2.1]

even a Playboy magazine can be a source of truth. right, mr. fish? we are definitely not yet one with the universe. hahahaha!

[SioDenz]

Question unta ani if unsa na truth gipangita...

[forester]

Just to be honest, the subject about "truth" has been a headache of philosophers until this time. It was the bases of all persecutions, inquisitions, excommunications and other form of maltreatment which exist in another form until today. This "truth" was considered as one of the most difficult area of philosophical research and thesis writing for students, may they be from the undergraduate to the graduate up to the post-graduate studies. Although there is already a sort of formula crafted by some thinkers of the past pertaining with truth, still their guidelines doesn't provide the answer to the question such as the one asked "who has the truth?".

Only the arrogant mind could afford to pretend that he knew the thing called "truth". It is not something which could be associated with a concrete object, but some philosophers opined (although their opinions were diversified) that is it something produced by one's mental conformity, such as the belief of a god or any other diefied characters.

Other philosophers offered classifications on the possible measurement of truths, they were:
1. Correspondence Theory of Truth - it refers to the truth where there is confirmation of the existence of the object which corresponds with the statement. Ex. All stones are solid matters.
2. Corehence Theory of Truth - it refers to the truth which will necessarily follow from the correct reasoning even the object has not been proven existent. Ex. 10 + 10 = 20
3. Pragmatic Theory of Truth - it refers to the truth which is confirmed by the results. Ex. Biogesic tablet is a true cure for headaches because it works.
4. Conventional Theory of Truth- it refers to the truth which is solely based on the common agreement of humanity or of any group of individuals. Ex. The supremacy of a dollar currency; the Law; the value of gold costs a lot than a bronze; etc.

Now, which truth do our persuasions were aimed into?

God is true (that is #4)
All crows are black - and this is true (that is #1)
Anesthesia can deceive the senses to feel pain - this is true according to results (this is #3)
When Felix is a cat and a cat has a tail, it follows that Felix has a tail - this is true according to correct thinking (this is #2)

Skeptics (another classification of thinkers) maintained that there is no truth because it is only a matter of perception.

In law, truth is something which a result of appreciation from the authority (like the judge); versions of truths will be presented by the defense and prosecution. The spectators had also their own appreciation of truth and also the jury (in another territory). The truth of the MTC judge maybe overturned by the RTC judge on appeal, then it could be revived or rejected by the Court of Appeals Justices on review on the same TRUTH and maybe totally abrogated by the Magistrates of the Supreme Court when in their appreciation that particular truth is no truth at all.

Recent events suggested that the "truth" appreciation maybe altered by a negotiable considerations, lets say a million pesos will do. In this instance, truth depends on whose lips are to be listened to.

I hope this discussion helps.