In a message dated 05/19/2000 8:33:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
<<
No... that is the point exactly. We can recognize "Truth" in its structures,
but we've constructed those structures -- so truth is really just an
arbitrary interpretation of our surroundings that we've created.
The point that "there is no truth" means that all truth claims are
constructed -- including that one. We should(?) engage in an investigation
of those truth claims and how they implicate our actions/existence.
>>
thank you for your response. as you can see from the awkward nature of my
questions I'm not a philosopher. however, let me try again. you are making,
or at least I assume that you're making, a true statement, which is informed
within the context of our own constructions; the most that one can say, at
this level, is that the existence of truth outside of these parameters is
unknowable. certainly one implication is that such a premise is a great
leveler, that all truth is limited to what we can know. now this seems
axiomatic to me, on the one hand, but on the other, as diogenes might have
said, "plato, there is truth, and then there is truth." for (the most
obvious) example, there is death. that is, there is a consequence to life --
and certainly death is not the only consequence of living. is it your
position that death is only understandable as "an arbitrary interpretation of
our surroundings that we've created"?
thanks again for your patience....
joe brennan
ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
<<
No... that is the point exactly. We can recognize "Truth" in its structures,
but we've constructed those structures -- so truth is really just an
arbitrary interpretation of our surroundings that we've created.
The point that "there is no truth" means that all truth claims are
constructed -- including that one. We should(?) engage in an investigation
of those truth claims and how they implicate our actions/existence.
>>
thank you for your response. as you can see from the awkward nature of my
questions I'm not a philosopher. however, let me try again. you are making,
or at least I assume that you're making, a true statement, which is informed
within the context of our own constructions; the most that one can say, at
this level, is that the existence of truth outside of these parameters is
unknowable. certainly one implication is that such a premise is a great
leveler, that all truth is limited to what we can know. now this seems
axiomatic to me, on the one hand, but on the other, as diogenes might have
said, "plato, there is truth, and then there is truth." for (the most
obvious) example, there is death. that is, there is a consequence to life --
and certainly death is not the only consequence of living. is it your
position that death is only understandable as "an arbitrary interpretation of
our surroundings that we've created"?
thanks again for your patience....
joe brennan