Sorry to have to say so, Chris, but you've unacceptably confused 'truth'
> with 'belief'. The notion of something being "true for person x" is nothing
> more than another way of saying that x believes something to be true.
Thank's for picking me up on that
> Everyone has fundamental beliefs, of course, but it's misleading to call
> these beliefs 'fundamental truths'. When your distinction is reworded as
> one between "fundamental belief" and "universal belief", it makes much more
I don't have a problem with that
> BTW, the bit about the "believer's hat" was my way of trying to capture the
> same idea that Mahlon and Bob have spoken of as "bracketing-off" one's
> beliefs about the divinity of a person when one is "doing history" related
> to that person. I have my doubts as to whether or how far this is possible,
> but I'm willing to take their word for it that it is possible, since
> they're the ones who find themselves in that situation.
Surely the important thing for the believer 'doing history' is to declare their interest - that way the reader knows how many grains of salt to take to make the results more palletable (sp?).
See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/crosstalk/?start=3936