Jejudo, South Korea
Ah, don't be so rough on the guy. He's not that bad yet.
Life revolves ultimately around truth.
This is Platonic, not Postmodernish.
Life consists of a never-ending series of decisions.
Who wants to argue with that? Actually, I can but we have to redefine the decision as far more important than what most people do.
In order for a decision to be made, however, there must be truth to base the decision upon.
Not necessarily. The decision can actually be against truth.
What, exactly, is truth? Truth is perceived as correct in a given situation. Everything involves a certain element of truth, whether it be proven to be truth or thought by the individual as being true.
Of course, in order for the above to work, he has to redefine truth as the perception of truth. This is quite common these days but it's not exactly Postmodern (defined here as the stuff I try to get across). This is just a subject-centered version of truth. This is relativism, and, yes, your usual argument against such thinking is successful. The belief that their can be different types of truths negates the idea that their is one truth and so one can not fully accept the idea of a personal version of truth (the one truth) and not be self-contradictory.
Faith is a category of truth because faith is decidedly true for a certain individual.
In other words, people who have faith believe it to be true.
If you have faith in something, you believe it to be true, therefore it is true for you in your mind.
So, all forms of delusion are then true? A lot of people are saying this these days but nobody acts like that. What they're doing, I think, is attempting to combine traditional ideas of truth (it's superiority, it's importance, it's beauty, it's goodness) with the Liberal view of tolerance. They are hard to square theoretically (though not, as I see it, hard to square practically).
Although one thing may be true for the individual with faith, it may not be true for another individual has either no faith or a faith different from their own.[quote]
Yeah, by substituting the perception of truth for the truth, this makes sense. Unfortunately, people, many people, seem to find this more palatable than saying, "Well, I think you're wrong but I'm not going to kill you for it."
I suppose that would actually engender a conversation and we all know how dangerous that is. Better to stay safe and sound in isolated beliefs, not challenging others for fear of having your own beliefs, and probably more importantly, your identity challenged. To jump a bit, I also think this is society's scientism rearing it's ugly head. Because not everything can be placed in a controlled experiment, it's up for grabs.
[quote]Faith cannot be proven because it is a person having a strong feeling toward the truth of one thing.
This is far too general to be meaningful. Different faiths can and have been proven all the time. I suspect what Cowboy really wants to argue is that God can't be proven.
Another element of truth is fact, as well as opinion. Fact is an obvious, well-known truth because it has been proven to be true.
Okay, fact is obvious and well-known, it has been proven. That is, we can't argue over the facts.
Opinion, on the other hand, is quite different. Opinion is based on something that is thought to be true by an individual. Opinion cannot be a fact because an opinion is only seen to be fact by certain individuals who perceive it as a truth. Even though some see it as true, others see it as false. Varying thoughts on what is true make an opinion unable to be proven.
Loot at what happens here: a fact is unarguable because it's obviously true, an opinion is unarguable because it's unprovable. This is scientism. Furthermore, he cloaks both fact and opinion in the cape of truth. They are both true:
An opinion cannot be a fact and in contrast a fact cannot be an opinion. Both are truths, but their meanings and roles are very different.[quote]
[quote]In conclusion, life does revolve around what is true.
This is just a reassertion of the opening sentence. I see nothing here that shows this to be true.
What is right and what is wrong is determined by what we know as being true.
Actually, I always thought what is right and what is wrong are determined by what we feel is right and what is wrong.
Since very few truths are fact, therefore many truths go without being proven. Truth often varies between individuals, so what is right and what is wrong can never be accurately determined.
See the shift here. Cowboy individualizes truth, but objectivizes right or wrong. So, truth can be determined (it is whatever you believe it to be), but somehow being right or wrong must be objectively determined rather than whatever you believe it to be.
This is not a Postmodernist position. A postmodernist position, mine anyway, is that truth and right and wrong are inter-subjectively determined and we don't need anything other than some type of politics (preferably democratic) to determine what they are. I often talk about usefulness and I still think that's important but if something is useless or harmful, it's either neutral and therefore allowable or we'll change it.
Note, the inherent risk that I've left untalked about is intended. It is a scary proposition.