Education

@Salaris: Yes, that makes sense. I agree on both points. I am neither a Liberal nor a Conservative (Communist, Fascist etc.) because I know that both have flaws. Also religious debates such as Predestination vs. Free Will likely work together in a way we can't comprehend.

@Life: I think the word 'truth' is on it's way out. Sad

It seems to be a lot more vague than I remember it. Statements like 'it's true for him' are killing it. Just for clarity when I was speaking of the truth, I meant objective fact.

I'd also argue that seeking the truth should precede seeking a course of action. Find out if mass slaughter is acceptable behaviour before you drop a bomb on Hiroshima. Even if it will effectively end the war. Even for basic usage, you should ask whether or not the bomb will be effective before you drop it.
_________________

Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.

@Life: all good observations and I agree entirely

Well, I was thinking more of the pre-modern era. Before I was born. Although my wording made it sound like I meant in my own life, so my bad.

What I really meant was that the word 'truth' seems to be more vague than it was in the past (again I mean hundreds or thousands of years ago). Like when Life used the statement 'people's opinions are their truth', the word 'truth' isn't being used as objective fact.

As an aside, I do know there are grey areas in life and sometimes there is no perfect answer. For example, if a Nazi soldier knocked on my door and asked if I was hiding Jews in my house, I know that lying is the lesser of two evils. However, I still think that both lying and giving up innocent people to be killed are wrong is the truth. I also think that lying being the lesser of two evils is the truth.
_________________

Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.

Understood.

Personally I don't think the definition of "truth" has changed drastically from pre-modern times in the sense that it incorporates beliefs/opinions that have no factual basis. At least I can't imagine that our current use, as we are discussing here, had no precedent in pre-modern times.

That being said as much as we'd like to know what went through past people's minds (and believe me archaeologists would love it if we could do this) this is something we will never know. Witness how there are debates over "what did famous person X from the 19th century really think?" where, despite a wealth of written records, we often conclude that we can never know what was truly going through their minds.

Add to this that what was accepted as truth (fact) even as late as the mid-19th century would be categorized as "truth as belief" or not even considered as a maintainable position today. A prime example would be pre-germ theory medicine. By comparison our acceptance that it is a fact that the world orbits the sun would've been dismissed as incorrect in the past so some of our ideas of "truth as fact" would've been categorized, at best, by them as "truth as belief (not fact)." So it is difficult to make a perfect comparison between our use of truth and their use of truth.

If I were to make a guess I would suggest that the reason truth appears to be more inclusive of non-factual beliefs is because societies have become more open to ideas that break from the main stream (ie no more Dark Age burning at the stake for "heretical," aka outside the box, thinking). The base definition of truth hasn't changed, but our societies have changed to be more inclusive of an aspect of truth that was often hidden from view.
_________________

Page 4 of 4		All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4