Originally Posted by 13redfan
Ok, well I sort of understood that. I understand and accept that everything is relative. A good demonstration (I think) would be to say we can or cannot prove whether a glass has water in or not. Now, most would say that it is not relative, because either the glass has water in or does not. Untrue. It is relative to your definition of water (I'm looking for the right wording here give me a hand ok) because even if there is no water that we can see in the glass, and it is bone dry (again a relativity) there is still air in the glass, and there is water in the air. Thus it is relative. So yes, everything is relative.[/b]
that is relative in a way of words. Also a thing that makes alot of things relative and open to interpretation: Language isn't 'factual', language is a way to abstractly describe what we see (or actually, process in our brains). Basically, that doesn't even make it secondary truth (what we see/conceive, for that depends on interpretation, like optical illusions). Language is tertiary truths (in a, my, way). It is an abstract way to share our thoughts that lead from observation (and such).
You could form an achtype-question (that would be more useful without language in a way, for lanuge is flawed), anyhow that question would be like 'H20, 2 protons bonded to one oxygen atom, ectect.'. That would in a reality always come up with the same answer: there is H2O in the glass. However there is allways the option that all the H2O in the glass actually are midgets that react exactly the same to all known ways of measurement.
So, there are about 2 things that make truths relative:
-Differences in interpretation: human factors that occur (what is 'good', what is 'water' (H20 or only liquid H20?).
-'Matrix' like possibilities: We could be living in a machine and there could be an invisible, untouchable, undetectable teacup that revolved around everyones heads.
Now, the truth, as I see it, is not one definitive thing. It is entangled in everything and everyone, and all theories in some way (by theories I include all religions) are made up of fragments of this truth, but are clouded because the truth is not so easy to explain. In the same way that it is difficult for me to relay the happenings of one of my dreams, it is difficult to explain the truth.[/b]
Basically, the only 'truths' there are are cultural truths and such. An objective truth wouldn't be entangled with other things, relative truths are entangled with people and religions. That is kind of the definition of Objective, isn't it?
I can give you images, feelings, colours, of my dream (the truth, in this analogy) but not the whole dream, and everyone I tell will interpret the images, feelings and colours in another way.[/b]
Yeah, that kind of makes everything relative.
And even if there would be absolute truths, would people interpret them in the right way? Wouldn't everyone enterpit them differently? Even if there was 100% truth, everyone would see it a slight bit different, thus, is there objective truth? No.
There is a thing called spiritus mundi I'm not really all that clued up on it, but it's like a pool of thought that everyone draws from, all thoughts, ideas anything comes from there. So maybe the truth is that entire pool, fused together in millions of different waves, splashing around, seething with knowledge, and religions are just little puddles around the edges, each holding some values and faults?
[/b]
Ah, collective knowledge or however you like to call it interesting subject. Like how people (in confined spaces) make crosswords puzzles better if they are of yesterdays newspaper (without them knowing it) then when it is a puzzle that is not yet 'out there'.
It is an interesting topic. However, it has little to do with this. Doesn't matter or it exist or not: If mankind puts 'data' into it, it is relative. You would have to go into the realm of supernatural (gods) to give the 'pool of collective knowledge' some super-human 'truths'.
(edit: quotes fixed)
|
|
Bookmarks