(Continuing from previous discussions) I don't want to say we are all Gods in our own little ways because of the simple fact that we cannot perform any miracles...or can we?
If you think I created five million bowls of soup from one drop of chicken noodle, and I say so, did it just become a fact? Can that be called an absolute statement? I mean, if you believe it and I believe it, and if I make everyone else believe it, wouldn't that become a truth? After all, based on what we have talked about so far, everyone has different truths. So why can't we make them all believe the same thing?
Is making something absolute solely dependent on common belief of all?
Also, is it not possible for actions to be absolute? If I touch something, and say "I
touched it" how can that not be an absolute? If someone says I didn't, why would we bother with the truth of a lier? I guess what I'm trying to say is does every truth worth the same and do we have to take all the truths into account when we are determining the absolute.
Sorry if you don't understand what I'm talking about.
(Jennifer Park)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think that we have to take into account all the truths when determining the absolute, but then again, I don't think it is possible to have one absolute. I think that if we got everyone to agree on one thing, it would become the truth, but that's the problem. Is it really possible for everyone to agree on exactly the same thing? I have my doubts.
Also, even if you say, 'I touched it,' someone else may say that you 'skimmed' it or that you 'nudged' it. It all goes back to each word having a different meaning and connotation associated with it, as well as the point that everyone has their own unique perception of something.
In regards to the 'truth of a liar,' why wouldn't we bother with it? If that person somehow perceived that you weren't touching it, wouldn't that mean that maybe from a different perspective, it didn't seem like you were touching it? In that case, isn't it important to know about the 'truth' of a liar because it points out a different point of view?
Sorry if I don't make sense. It's late for me, and my brain's just about dead.
I think what Jen brings up is an interesting point. Just because it may not seem like I touched something to one person doesn't mean I didn't touch it. Just for a moment, forget about whether "touched", "skimmed" or "nudged" is used-- just think about the idea of my finger making contact with that piece of paper, or whatever it may be. I can feel that I'm touching the paper, so I say "I touched it." But, say, Mary says I didn't touch it because from her perspective it looked like I was touching the table that the paper was on. Isn't one of us right? In this case, wouldn't it be incorrect to say that we both have different perceptions, therefore different individual truths, therefore we're both right? Doesn't one of us have to be wrong? Could this be taken to a larger scale? (Does that make sense?)
Emily T.
Jen brings up an interesting point. The way I look at it "reality" or "truth" can not exist for every peson perceives a different reality or different truth. However, because most people share the same five senses, we can come to a common understanding of what "reality" is. The simple fact of the matter is that it is nearly if not completely impossible to convince a person of something they can not perceive with their senses. (This of course excludes God or any other type of divinity, for as we know faith is not based on rational thought, but is instead faith and therefore is something entirely different.)
Because our senses dictate to us what is "real", it would be impossible to convince people of your million bowls of soup miracle. Similarly, If you were to touch a plate, your action is absolute, but not the words you use to describe the action. What is a plate? what does touch mean? How can you touch an object which is composed almost entirely of space? (considering the plate is made up of atoms, most of which are composed of space) It is impossible to have such a statement be true. However, because we as humans perceive the world through the same five senses, we would witness the event in almost the exact same way. Therefore, based on our sensory perception you did in fact touch the plate. (As long as we agree what a plate is and what touch means)
Therefore, it is my belief that although there is no absolute truth, there is truth within the realm of sensory perception. What do you think?
Kevin Trainer
How about if I say "I had a physical contact with that object sitting on that table"?
Would the above statement be more agreeable in terms of making the sentence absolute?
Also, from Kevin's mentioning of faith, I feel as if trying to make something absolute is similar to worshiping in a religion.Everyone has to BELIEVE it. Is this a cult or what?
Gosh, more and more time in this class makes me skeptical of everything.
(Jennifer Park)
Post a Comment