Then, is the democracy unable to do moral truths?
http://es.catholic.net/op/articulos/59849/el-derecho-a-la-vida-una-mera-concesin-social.html
No sir, the truth is ... the Truth. It is not supposed to be measured.
No sir, the truth is ... the Truth. It is not supposed to be measured.
Probably, yes, as we do not have any other measuring instrument for it. However, I think, only the concerned person can know about the truth with self.
I think that if the truth resides in all people, then only one vote or opinion would be sufficient to know the truth. But in the world there is evil and lies. Consequently the arithmetic of democracy to do moral laws is very limited and it is not its competence.
History tells us 'no'! Otherwise, planet Earth would have been flat not so long ago....
I completely agree with Maria. Truth is always truth. Sometimes majority may not stand with truth and it cannot be measured as well.
Not in science!.In ancient times,majority ( everyone!) thought the Earth was the center of the Universe. The Sun, Moon, stars and planets were thought to be attached to crystal spheres that turned around us.
Let me answer your question with a quote from Freeman Dyson:
"In the history of science it has often happened that the majority was wrong and refused to listen to a minority that later turned out to be right"
majority of opinions can be reached with a good marketing campaign. Like Dr. Maria has said before, the truth is unchageable, no adjectives are allowed to be added to it.
Truth can never be measured......although"Truth, itself measures everyone's integrity and purity".
It means if anyone comes close to truth it will be appreciated.
Truth can not be defined also it can only be felt.
According to our teaching, "Truth is something which can not change its form, at any stage at any time of frame, in real (what we call) and imaginary (that we call).
But if we define truth with the procedural justice of law, it always depends upon opinions.
So truth is totally different things.....difficult to define but very pure in feeling.
Truth can never be measured, its beyond the range of anybody to measure Truth. It can only be felt by our consciousness.
Truth in our tradition, is defined as something which does not change its form, feature, structure in any kind of condition. Neither in sleep nor in conscious stage .
Although, the justice which is usually defined in terms of Law is 100% guided by majority of opinions.
So justice and truth is not similar things. And truth is a non measurable quantity.
Truth itself measure the integrity of any mankind.
Dear Mariano/all
IMHO, in science, truth can be measured by evaluating evidences. We reach the truth by observing overwelming/convincing evidence and not by majority.
Science is a determination of what is most likely to be correct at the current time with the evidence at our disposal. Scientific facts are dynamic and are subject to change. That is the way science progresses. What was cinsidered to be the truth about earth before Galileo?
I agree with my Research Gate colleagues that Truth is not measureable
The famous Condorcet's Jury Theorem says that, under certain conditions, the probabilities that a great number of average individuals choose the right option is higher than the probability associated with a small number of wise individuals.
This theorem is not irrelevant for the theory of public opinion. Problems arise in relation to the extent that the conditions or assumptions of the theorem are fulfilled in the real world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet%27s_jury_theorem
Dear Mariano,
Sometimes majority opinion suits the truth, sometimes it does not. The indication that the majority is automatically right cannot be the rule.
Another trouble may be that the truth is relative and the person – his culture and all kinds of dependence – influence it. Absolut truth is difficult to recognise and more difficult is to interpret it.
Dear Artur,
Thanks.
„Pilate says to Jesus:
"What is truth?"
And when he had said this, again he came to the Jews and told them:
"I find no basis for a charge against him.
Yes, at first we should manage our personnel relationship to truth.
Dear Arthur!
Is there any such thing as a "wrong truth" ?
In which case we should measure the several levels of fake truths... or fraudulent lies.
For most of us, truth is absolute, and does not depend on opinion. In science, facts (sometimes considered truth) are generally considered to be true, but with new evidence can be changed. So the importance is for us to remember that in science theory is the BEST explanation for the phenomenon under discussion. It might change with new knowledge, but it should represent a lot of good research to have moved from a hypothesis to a theory. This frequently leads both scientists and the general public to confuse theory with fact with truth. They are not the same.
Dear all, to be able to discern the truth, people must know what it is. I agree with Robert John Wolff in that truth is linked with our degree of knowledge or capacity to understand phenomena, including human situations. Most truths are "conventional" and depend on tradition. When people give their opinion, they usually think they are embracing "their truth", as if truth were something punctual, personal, not easy to share. Truth would require education, willingness to find it, and braveness to embrace it. Trust is no longer our business as a humanity. The new word is "negotiation", and at present, truth is negotiated as everything else. I never forget that when Don Quixote went inside the Montesinos Cave he saw many things that even he found hard to believe. Sancho was skeptical when his master told him what he had seen in there. But, when later on, Don Q and Sancho were tricked into flying on the wooden horse Clavileño and Sancho eventually tried tell him what he saw while Don Q's eyes are covered, Don Q said, "If you believe my stories of the cave, I'm willing to believe what you are telling me now about how Heaven looked from up there". Cervantes was poking fun at truth and, in this brilliant conversation, he unmasked what we have know all the time: truth is negotiated because no one knows for sure what truth is. Besides, if truth has to be "believed" and not "known", then, we are in trouble with "truth".
Bests regards, Lilliana
Dear Artur,
I am sorry but I do not think a judge should find the truth. No, judges want only to measure the degree of legality. They are trained to distinguish what is legal or illegal. Truth is another category. Jurisdiction has not much to do with justice. Jurisdiction serves only lawfulness that is the politically coded fairness.
Truth is absolutely true and does not need verification through opinions, debates or reliable sources. Truth will always be truth, regardless of lack of understanding, disbelief or ignorance. Facts, however can be verified by evidences, experiments, sources, etc.
There are two questions you're asking. One is whether "truth" can be measured by some sort of consensus. The other is whether "moral truth" can be similarly measured.
Moral truth is a bit of a problem. I can trivially describe all manner of "morality," as currently professed on planet earth, that is anything but "moral truth," in my humble opinion. And yet, such supposed "moral truths" are sworn to, by either a majority, or at least a significantly large percentage, of the members of certain cultural groups.
So on "moral truths," I'd say no, but then again, moral truth is hard to define. What is an obvious moral truth to me may regrettably be considered sacrilegious to the other guy. Or perhaps we should be debating whether or not "witches" should still be burned at the stake (just to mention one hopefully noncontroversial example from the distant past).
Much the same holds for scientific "truths." It wasn't all that long ago that the earth was supposed to have been the center of the universe, according to popular cultural beliefs.
So, "truth" is a tricky concept, but no, I don't think that popular consensus makes it either correct or incorrect.
The word opinion has occurred several times in posts. Most people say all opinions are of equal value, everyone's opinion should count. Well that is certainly false as I do not want the opinion of someone who is poorly educated and does not study to tell me what kind of medical treatment I should receive. A physician or other trustworthy medical professional I would listen to. In the same way, consensus, of the under-educated and unaware does not lead to truth. Instead it frequently leads to to myth or fear, especially with our current 'media enthralled world.'
The majority opinion is just that: most of opinions. His expression, quantification or knowledge does not give truth condition, if such simply understand the suitability of a proposition about what it expresses, whether true or false. The majority opinion about something is not proof of coincidence between a statement and reality. However, when truth seeks to mention the sincerity and honesty of a say or believe, then the recognition of a majority on a fact does not constitute corroboration of the fact, but check the majority belief on it. Now if what we mean is that truth is contrary to lie, seen as a moral issue, then use or be truthful is always profess the truth to say or do what you believe.
The answer is No, Here is what Max Plank wrote about scientific truth:
"New scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it,"
~ Max Planck
Scientific consensus can change over time. Kuhn argued that only after the accumulation of many "significant" anomalies would scientific consensus enter a period of "crisis". At this point, new theories would be sought out, and eventually one paradigm would triumph over the old one , a cycle of paradigm shifts rather than a linear progression towards truth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus
I have a personal belief that majority is not always right. In a democratic system, majority of voters tend to be swayed by a candidate with the better lobbying skill and ability to engage people via social media thus appealing to the emotions rather than sensible reasoning. The candidate who might have more sensible, realistic and credible goals and plans, might not emerge as the successful candidate thus proving in this case that majority would have voted for the wrong candidate. This happens even in advocacy for positive change.
Only the perception of truth can be measured. However, the question remains what is the truth?
The truth is filtered and defined by the media and the majority is often led to view what seems to be true whereas it may not be. Our vision is blurred by the influential and often engineered ways of perceiving what is true or not. It seems that sociopolitical dominance and the media at its service define the truth of things around us.
Albert Einstein also had stubborn contrarians who did not want to accept his theory of relativity. They even wrote a book, A Hundred Authors Against Einstein.
In response, Einstein shrugged off his critics, saying "If I were wrong, then one would be enough.
Dear Ganka,
The truth of a thing is what it is. András said an example of a conversation between Jesus and Pilate. Then, if Jesus was innocent according to Pilate, why was he condemned to an ignominious death as if he would be a very bad person? Did the majority dictate a false accusation or was it for hate without truth? This is an example of the history.
Any simple statement is either true or false, and tertium non datur. A more complex statement can be divided into several (or even a lot of) simple ones of which some are true while others are not, but which is which cannot be decided by vote (as virtually all who took their part in this discussion agreed). The democracy has nothing to do with seeking for the truth. Moreover, even in the very democratic Societies there always was and still is a tyranny of obtrusing opinions of majorities on other people who are sure that these opinions are wrong. Are they, however? Not necessarily although often enough.
Dear Mariano,
I agree with you. The truth is the first and ultimate principle.
Dear Colleagues,
Good Day,
"The said truth is that it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong."
---- Jeremy Bentham
Dear Colleagues,
Good Day,
"We live in a material world, not a dramatic one. And truth resides not in melodrama, but in the precise measure of material things."
----- Richard Flanagan
Ted Nelson (who, incidentally is the true Father-of-the-Internet) has long said that truth and knowledge will in the internet age become subject to popular vote.
See ...
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
― Aldous Huxley, Complete Essays 2, 1926-29
The Voice of the Majority is not a Measurement of Truth
Written by Dr. Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin
Truth always becomes a casualty when people weigh it up based on what others are saying or based on the opinions of other people. Therefore, who knows how many genuine facts in a community are rejected because it is not favorite topics of discussion among the masses. Who knows how many untrue facts and lies are swallowed wholly by a community because it is trusted by the majority.
That is the fate of the truth or al-haq if collective voice or rumor is considered as the main yardstick (for determining trueness). For, verily, that is not so! Truth is truth. The truth is measured using proofs and reasons. In the academic world, it is also stated as ‘with facts and figures’. If the proofs aresahih (sound) and the reasons are truthful or the figures are correct and the facts are accurate then that is the truth even though the masses are ignorant of it or reject it.
As such, lies that are accepted by the masses cannot replace the truth. In Islam, the paramount proofs and reasons, or facts and figures, are those that are well-defined by Allah and His Messenger. If we change this principle in identifying the truth like using the voice of majority as the measurement then many errors and mistakes, or even deviations, would be deemed as the truth.
For more plz read at following link.
Best Regards
http://drmaza.com/english_section/?p=41
Truth cannot be measured -cannot be divided-cannot be challenge.Truth means the verdict of superior power which remains within every human beings which has an approval of divinity within us .
Just as Honesty ,it is considered all the time as the Best Policy for which whether individual approves or otherwise ,it can not challenge the verdicts or sermons of honesty .
The same is equally true for the verdicts of '' TRUTH'',which cannot be modified,challenge as there are the verdict past on to us by or the incarnates visited our earth at different in the intervals to offer the promise make our life worthy as human beings.
Very often in the conversation we used the word '' Gospel Truth '' in the sense that it cannot be change- challenge -modified .That is why it has been from the beginning said that Truth all the time remains victorious & in the religion verdict for the guideline of human beings it has been reflected that '' Satyamev Jayate . While expressing this , for TRUTH -
T- TEENS
R - REACHING
U- UP
T- TO
H- HEAVEN
This is my personal opinion
Truth can’t be reached by frequency of opinions on a subject. Earlier people knew that the Earth is stable and the sun is revolving around it. It proved wrong with procession of time.
Truth has another meaning in social aspects. It increases harmony and mutual understanding within the society.
Truth of Nature are discovered by experimentation and prolonged study.
Dear Hazim: @"The said truth is that it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.@ Did not the History of the mankind tell us about some Big Lies that made the majority quite happy - at least, for a time being? By the way, the biggest of them is that the great happiness of the greatest number may be paid for by the unhappiness of even a very small number. Do believe me, please, as I lived a rather long life under this seemingly right but really very vicious doctrine.
Dear Marcel, you are incredibly funny... and wise. Touché!
Best regards, Lilliana
Dear Khan, the problem is that we do not have a real democracy where people can vote based on knowledge (interpreted facts) and not on belief (on which opinions are usually based). Democracy, as a concept, is still a benchmark for society, a benchmark we have not been able to reach yet as a society.
Best regards, Lilliana
such is the beauty of Democracy ... although Copernicus died in full knowledge of the Truth.
No truth cannot be measured with majority......
Truth remains truth even if one says it and majority does not! Majority view may be due to some collective benefit which the members are seeking to achieve. I think even they know that what they are seeking may not be right.
Truth wins in the end .... (this is what I personally feel..... and am ready to pay the price for it.....).
Elections are made to kown the opinion of the voters relative to governance. In other situations, like the validity of a statement, the elections are not appropriate.
Yes, sometimes not always. It prevails everywhere and does not need majority of opinions.
“I don't imagine you will dispute the fact that at present the stupid people are in an absolutely overwhelming majority all the world over.”
-Henrik Ibsen
The truth is valid even when it is not being recognized now.
Another question, however, is whether anyone (and who) try to uncover this truth.
Elections are to find out popularity, or it seems who is least un-popular. But democracy and elections do not really deal with truth in any manner. These are issues of governance, of politics, of fear, of charisma.....
Yes Josef - who will pursue truth? Will those of us in science keep seeking and promoting truth, even when it is unpopular?
Shahnaz - I would like to change your quotation "at present people thinking and acting stupidly are in an absolutely overwhelming majority...." I would like to think that humanity has greater potential, but we are running wildly in all directions, letting stupid thoughts and actions take control.
Dear all:
In my view, science is a collective enterprise.
We know that Truth is not an appropriate concept in science. Scientists try to see if a proposition or system of propositions is false. Their procedure involves the intervention of reviewers.
As a specific hypothesis or theory is analyzed, criticized, tested and in general reviewed by an increasing number of scientists, the possible weaknesses of the proposition emerge. The hypothesis is polished, revised or rejected.
As a result of this process, the hypothesis or theory is accepted or not as valid when the scientific community reaches a consensus. This may take time, but I think that the number of people involved and the notion of "majority" are not irrelevant for this procedure.
Dear All,
It is good to see how RG members try to approach the notion and meaning of truth. Of course, I suppose each of you is frank and shows honestly your imagination on truth. Interestingly, absolute truth has been referred to many contributions. Absolute truth cannot be approached by a single man. The absolute truth can be recognised only during quite a long time by generations of people. As far as I can consider, some people study enthusiastically and mainly theoretically truth or truth situations but even more people get their convenient living as they deny common truth or common interest because they prefer merely their own personnel benefits. This is an old human strategy and is called the Pharisee tactic.
The general populance can be misled, this is exactly the case with Hitler's Nazi Germany. I am afraid there is no causal relations between truth and majority of opinions.
I see democracy and religion creeping into the discussion. Democracy might not be perfect, because no one on earth knows "the perfect truth," let along a majority, but it's the best system we have. Why? Because it is self regulating. It won't allow lunatics who claim to know "the absolute truth," or even who claim to know what's best for everyone else, to take power. Or if they do, they won't have it for long.
That's what makes it self regulating. If everyone votes for his own self interests, we have a good chance that the system will muddle along as best as one can expect.
As to religion, I don't think I need to point out what is painfully obvious. As fabulous as religion should be, and often is, the most evil acts are committed by those who claim to know what God thinks. So, no, religion is demonstrably not the answer. A religious system is not self-regulating.
There has to be a way for the majority to boot out those in power. Not because the majority has a monopoly on what truth is, but because there is no other way to keep lunatics from taking control and holding on to it. It's the best system we have.
As José correctly points out, science does not claim to know the truth. It goes after the truth, but every theory is constantly challenged, perhaps updated, and sometimes even scrapped entirely. This is much more similar to a democratic process than any other form of government.
The Spanish article Mariano appended in the starting question is on the 'inalienable right to live' (chiefly in the domain of bioethics). His question is linking a Catholic doctrine to the issue of truth by consensus. I would say the following.
There is truth in different domains:
1. Logical truth: it is truth of syllogism.
2. Metaphysical truth: It is related to logical truth but under ontological considerations, for example, the principle of non-contradiction.
3. Moral truth: 'correctness' of right and wrong
And, other many domain-sensitive 'truth'... For example, theologically, we can state God=Truth (Aletheia as Arthur wrote in Koine quoting the biblical passage of Pilate's pathetic lack of recognition of Truth standing in front of him, in flesh and bone). Scientific truth relies on both logical truth and metaphysical truth.
Now, whether democracy is 'truth' in any ways, which is the main question of Mariano, here are my views:
1. The issue on the table is, in a way, the "political truth".
2. "political truth" can never be totally valid since consensus cannot warrant truth (Mariano's point) of logic-ontological kind. This has been argued, and since Tocqueville's "the tyranny of majority," we know that there is a problem in the old adagio of "Vox poluli, vox Dei" and we also know that some consensus can go badly wrong.
3. However, the power of consensus in democracy albeit its limitations leads to the only plausible actual decisions and actions. On the other hand, a total consensus with 100% plausibility in a democratic system is almost an impossible.
4. That is why, most civilized jurisdictions in the world allow room for a legal "objection in conscience or conscientious objection," that is, right to dissent and/or opt out on the ground of moral truth of the claimant. Now, this is a grey area. Some states legally manipulate and maneuver against "objection in conscience", being perhaps Belgium and the Netherlands (well, some US states too) somewhat notorious.
Dear Colleagues,
Good Day,
"A half truth is a whole lie."
----- Yiddish Proverb
Dear Sofia, how do you know that "only God knows the absolute truth"? Is not it but a typical example of statistically prevailing opinion (even three different opinions: 1. God exists; 2. Something you call the absolute truth exists; 3. God - and nobody else - knows it)?
A statement is termed "opinion" when it is assumed by either a personal preference or authoritative argument without any proof. When a statement is supported by a proof, it is termed knowledge. A million of opinions only proves the lack of proofs. To know that a statement is true, only one proof is enough. In fact, there is no opinion that survives a hundred years.
Dear Juan-Esteban: @n fact, there is no opinion that survives a hundred years.@ Thus you propose another measure of truth: if a statemrnt survived a 100 years or more, it proves that this statement is no more a mere opinion - ergo, veritas? Alas, all three statements I've just mentioned in my comment on Sofia's one survived many thousands years - does it makes them a knowlege? I am sure that for many people it does but only because they are their beliefs (sorry, opinions!)
Dear Sofia, I AM SORRY BUT to distinguish between opinions and beliefs (which are Acts of Faith) is above my skill to to exercise the pilpul (you see, my ancestors were the Temple's priests but not talmudists). And be assured that although being a physician I do not believe that I am a God (does it mean that your wise Professor of Biology would be unable to distinguish between us?)
Sorry to be joking in a quite serious discussion. Mind you, however, tha even seriously speaking, as a mere scientist I need not to " believe in big bang theory, or in the ancestral soup." These are but well established scientific hypotheses, not claiming for being The Absolute Truth. So mine is not to peform acts of faith - mine is only to think and to weigh all the pros and cotras I learn about.
Dear Boris
My sentence is only a rhetorical figure. What I intend to mean is that opinions have poor existence.
I suppose that you are thinking about dogmatic beliefs that can survive thousands of years. But I do not think so. For instance, somebody can think that the existence of God can survive thousands of years, but only the sentence "God exists " can survive when changes its meaning. I am sure that when I write the term "God" I am meaning a very different concept from the term God written by my grand mother. What survives is the word, not the concept.
“A story is not always a lie," said Tristan. "Some stories are truer than truth."
Truer than truth? That sounded like something liars made up to tell people who found them out.”
― Mette Ivie Harrison, Tris & Izzie
Dear Juan-Estenan, substitute something like the " perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe" for " the God" - and you'll get not a word but a concept that reigned the mentality of your grand mother's and of her great-great- grand mother and of anybody in between.
Dear Boris,
When you say
"substitute something like the " perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe" for " the God"
I suppose that you can make the substitution. By contrast, I cannot. A perfect creator can only create perferct things. I can imagine a more perfect Universe than the one we know. For instance, an Universe without pain, without ignorant persons. These words all together in a sentence are used as compliments, praise, that is, by their connotations instead of their meanings.
"My friend bug-lover,
In truth, light doesn't hover,
Nor darkness does"...""Where you are a thought of matter"..."A thing is only the form, through which a human being understands the truth"S.Polotsky.
Joseph Brodsky: Butterfly
Should I pronounce you dead?
Thank Him: You've seen a rise of
the sun. Gifts so derisive
evoke regret:
I barely can infer
“you've lived.” Your dates: of birth, and
of turning into earth at
my hands, concur,
which makes me hesitate
subtracting out
the earlier amount
within one day.
II
Because a day for us
is nothing, innit?
The void. One cannot pin it
and make for eyes
their diet: Days, afar
on white background,
and having neither bound
nor substance, are
invisible. Aren't they
like you? Or rather,
you are, reduced a dozen
of times, one day.
III
I'd say, there is no you
at all, but what is
this silky-feeling goddess
like you? - And hue
is not the void's ally!
What could inspire
such wonder-paint applier?
Unlikely, I,
a muttering disease
so color-meager,
could have imagined figures
and tints like these.
IV
Your little wings display
eye-pupils, lashes.
Whose faces do these splashes
of dye portray:
a beauty girl's, a bird's?
Or, maybe, neither,
and on your flitting easel,
a Nature Morte
is painted: lettuce heads,
or beans of coffee,
and even – look! – a trophy
of fishing spreads.
V
Perhaps, armed with a lens,
I would discover
a landscape: beaches, towers,
a group of friends.
Is it as dark as night?
or day-like shiny?
And in the world so tiny,
which astral lights
adorn the sky? Disclose
to us, what's printed
on it, and give a hint what
the model was.
VI
I think, there coexist
and this, and those:
in you, a face, a rose,
a star persist.
Where is that artist-mage
who did not falter
to turn your elfin altar
a world-like stage,
the world that makes us fuss,
loose reason, shatter,
where you're a thought of matter,
the latter's us.
VII
Could you explain, what for
such guise was given
to you for less than even
a day, on shores
of lakes whose glossy look
reflects the vastness
of space? And you – this hastiness
steals your luck
to gratify,
let chasing, catching linger,
thrill in one's fingers,
allure the eye.
VIII
You won't respond, but for
another reason
than dither. Nor there is an
ill will. Still, nor
your death is your excuse.
All living creatures,
among their common features,
their kinship clues,
are granted voice for, say,
conversing, singing,
rehearsing and rethinking
a wink, a day.
IX
And you – you are devoid
of said endowment.
But less is good, - avow it! -
for, what's the point
to be a pet of fate,
an aim of envy?
So, don't lament yourself if
your wit, your weight
are worth of this taboo.
Voice burdens, trust me.
More aerial than dust, be
more silent, too.
X
Perception-free – alas,
of terrors spared,
you flutter in the air
above the grass
beyond these prison-like,
twice tears half laughter,
the former and hereafter,
and this is why
when you are searching for
your proper nurture
the very space, by virtue
of this, reforms.
XI
So does a poet's pen
that lonely slithers
along the notepad, neither
aware of when
nor what awaits its script,
where moonshine, wisdom
are mixed, but irresisting
that pulsing grip,
whose voiceless jolts compel
rejoicing, grieving,
not buds – of dust relieving,
but chest – of spells.
XII
So brief a tenure term
and looks so pretty,
combined in an unwitting
surmise, affirm
that what this world is for,
to say succinctly:
the Maker has no inkling,
and what is more,
the purpose isn't us.
My friend bug-lover,
in truth, light doesn't hover,
nor darkness does.
XIII
So, will you do as well
with my “Farewell” as
all days do? There are fellas
whose storage well
went Lethean. But look,
their sin is minor:
for there behind them fly nor
their fortune's flukes,
nor dates with beds for two,
nor dreams amorphous,
nor memories -- but swarms of
your siblings do!
XIV
You're better than the Void.
Or rather, nearer.
Yet from within, I fear,
you're its envoy,
its next of kin, its kind.
In your brief instance,
it has achieved existence;
and that is why,
all daily stir amid,
you're worth regarding
as something gently guarding
my self from it.
http://russiapastandpresent.blogspot.ru/2012/05/joseph-brodsky-butterfly.html
Ranchin A.M. http://www.portal-slovo.ru/philology/47841.php
no. I do feel neither @the necessity to believe in something to give a sense to your existence@ nor the sense of seeking for the sense of one's existence. it so happens that I exist - so let me exist as usefully as I can. is it not enough for you, dear Sofia? as to difference between atheism and nihilism - sorry. but it is the pilpul again.
Thanks for the invitation.
The majority of opinions may serve as an indicator of the attitude of humans towards specific matters. Truth has not and does not need any indicator. Truth simply exists.
If people who constitute Democracies, agree with some basic standards (not in words but in practice), then, truth may be approached. The consciousness of the person, in my opinion, plays a dominant role.
But are we ready to agree taking into account personal benefits and egoism? I have serious doubts.
The truth should be inflexible by definition.
Truth should not be swayed by any number of opinions. if it does, then itself is an opinion. Democracy is basically a tyranny of numbers that may relate with the truth or just opinions. I am not sure what is the distinction between an informed opinion and the truth though.
I have no necessity to believe in something to give a sense to my existence, neither I have the necessity of belief. I give sense to my existence by trying to know something else every day.
I'm sorry, the example is effective in those terms.
Eat shit!
420 billion flies can not be wrong!!.
Then, is the democracy unable to do moral truths?
See above...
Dear Giorgio,
""When, is the democracy unable to do moral truths?""
Truthfulness is a matter of logic. Moral deals with goodness. Democracy only guarantees weather some law is preferred by majority. What majority prefer need not be true or good. Thus, moral truths has no sense. Moral gives rise to rules no truths. When we assume a majority decision, we are constructing a world that is preferable for a majority, but need not be true or good. Sometimes majority prefer very bad things. Recall that HItler was voted by a majority, and today a majority do not agree with that decision.
Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch, nay, you may kick it all about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening.
~Oliver Wendell Holmes
Thank for the invitation. In my opinion, the truth cannot be decided by the majority opinion, since some truth is hard to be seen and known by the society.
Thanks for the invitation. Truth is relative inasmuch as it reflects an object not exhaustively but within certain limits, certain relations, which are constantly changing. Relative truth is limited true know ledge about something. It is difficult t to be measured.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychometrics
- Measurement