Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] Digest Number 172

Expand Messages
  • paul john
    Since the velocity of light = constant, then space and time is relative to the observer. Similiarly Being is constant and truth is relative? ... From: Randy
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 15, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Since the velocity of light = constant, then space and time is relative to
      the observer.
      Similiarly Being is constant and truth is relative?
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Randy Zeitman <randzman@...>
      To: <existlist@egroups.com>
      Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 9:32 AM
      Subject: Re: [existlist] Digest Number 172


      > >
      > >Message: 3
      > > Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 09:57:43 +0530
      > > From: Misam Abbas <misam_abbas@...>
      > >Subject: RE: Digest Number 171
      > >
      > >The discussion has been pretty intense , and somehow the definition
      > >"Truth is that which is regarldless of perception" doesn't seem
      convincing
      > >to me , for of what do we have evidence that we do not perceive. Could
      > >someone care to explain.
      >
      > No one said we don't perceive. I said if something is true it's true
      > regardless of perception. And again, I mean *really true*
      > (existential true, not conventional true).
      >
      > The process of perception isn't perfect...by definition...it's
      > perception. We can never know that what we observe is all that is
      > observable. (how would we know?...it's impossible...). So that means
      > anything we observe isn't truly real and thus anything we infer about
      > it can't be a truth.
      >
      > As such, nothing is truly real.
      >
      > For people that don't get this: This is an issue of context. This
      > discussion is about all possible realities, not simply the reality
      > knowable by human perception.
      >
      > >And another thing , is truth independent of time and space , or it is
      > >transient and local , and to make the discussion more concrete (though
      > >philosophical discussions notoriously tend to depart from this) , I would
      > >like someone to give an example of truth. Truth , to me , is an absolute
      ,
      > >and I am not too sure what an absolute is, especially since I haven't
      come
      > >across one.
      >
      > Same problem....space and time and human perceptions. You're trying
      > to measure something that is by definition not possible to know
      > (ultimate truth) with tools/terms soley restricted to a human
      > context. (It's akin to the newage statement 'crystals have powers
      > humans can perceive but can't be measured by science').
      >
      > Even the statement "It's true there humans can't know truth" isn't an
      > absolute truth because it's in the doman of human existance...though
      > it may be the best statement one can make there's no way to know it's
      > an absolute truth.
      >
      > Philosophy is a model, just as science. Science provides evidences
      > for honing a theory but it can't ever say 'this is a universal
      > truth'..it says 'this is a truth as much as humans can understand
      > truth....what we call a fact'.
      >
      > --
      >
      > Signature......
      > "In the best relationships sex is the booby prize."
      >
      > "I'm gotten so out of shape sittin' at the computer all day that I
      > get out of breath when I have to reach for the percent key!"
      >
      > - Zeitman
      >
      >
      >
      > From The Exist List...
      > http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
      >
      >


      ____________NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_________
      Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
      Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633
      ___________________________________________________________
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.