by Terry 93 Replies latest jw friends
When people say that everyone is entitiled to their own truth, that we all have our own truth and we shouldn't discount the truth of others, aren't they doing just that? Saying that THEIR view of truth ( what was just stated) is the truth ??
Yes, I know, it's a mind hump, but kind of fun nevertheless :)
Truth often, but not always subjective...facts usually are NOT, they're observable and not dependent upon subjective reality or phenomenological reality.
Facts are subjective.
It is a fact that what goes up, must come down, but only where there is gravity, so that fact is subject to the condition of gravity.
[These articles were written in 1946 for and appeared originally in THE VIGIL, a publication of The Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals, Beverly Hills, California. The subject of these articles was limited to the sphere of politics, for the purpose of defining and clarifying the basic principles involved in political issues. The series is incomplete; the twelve questions reprinted here were only the first third of a longer project; the rest has remained unwritten.]
The basic issue in the world today is between two principles: Individualism and Collectivism.
Individualism holds that man has inalienable rights which cannot be taken away from him by any other man, nor by any number, group or collective of other men. Therefore, each man exists by his own right and for his own sake, not for the sake of the group.
Collectivism holds that man has no rights; that his work, his body and his personality belong to the group; that the group can do with him as it pleases, in any manner it pleases, for the sake of whatever it decides to be its own welfare. Therefore, each man exists only by the permission of the group and for the sake of the group.
These two principles are the roots of two opposite social systems. The basic issue of the world today is between these two systems.
A social system is a code of laws which men observe in order to live together. Such a code must have a basic principle, a starting point, or it cannot be devised. The starting point is the question: Isthe power of society limited or unlimited?
Individualism answers: The power of society is limited by the inalienable, individual rights of man. Society may make only such laws as do not violate these rights.
Collectivism answers: The power of society is unlimited. Society may make any laws it wishes, and force them upon anyone in any manner it wishes.
Example: Under a system of Individualism, a million men cannot pass a law to kill one man for their own benefit. If they go ahead and kill him, they are breaking the law—which protects his right to life—and they are punished.
Under a system of Collectivism, a million men (or anyone claiming to represent them) can pass a law to kill one man (or any minority), whenever they think they would benefit by his death. His right to live is not recognized.
Under Individualism, it is illegal to kill the man and it is legal for him to protect himself. The law is on the side of a right. Under Collectivism, it is legal for the majority to kill a man and it is illegal for him to defend himself. The law is on the side of a number.
In the first case, die law represents a moral principle.
In the second case, the law represents the idea that there are no moral principles, and men can do anything they please, provided there's enough of them.
Under a system of Individualism, men are equal before the law at all times. Each has the same rights, whether he is alone or has a million others with him.
Under a system of Collectivism, men have to gang up on one another—and whoever has the biggest gang at the moment, holds all rights, while the loser (the individual or the minority) has none. Any man can be an absolute master or a helpless slave—according to the size of his gang.
An example of the first system: The United States of America. (See: The Declaration of Independence.)
An example of the second system: Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany.
Under the Soviet system, millions of peasants or “kulaks” were exterminated by law, a law justified by the pretext that this was for the benefit of the majority, which the ruling group contended was anti-kulak. Under the Nazi system, millions of Jews were exterminated by law, a law justified by the pretext that this was for the benefit of the majority, which the ruling group contended was anti-Semitic.
The Soviet law and the Nazi law were the unavoidable and consistent result of the principle of Collectivism. When applied in practice, a principle which recognizes no morality and no individual rights, can result in nothing except brutality.
Keep this in mind when you try to decide what is the proper social system. You have to start by answering the first question. Either the power of society is limited, or it is not. It can’t be both.
Definition from wikipedia - collectivism is a term used to describe any moral, political, or social outlook, that emphasizes the interdependence of every human in some collective group and the priority of group goals over individual goals. Collectivists focus on community and society, and seek to give priority to group rights over individual rights. [ 1 ] [ 2 ]
Anything taken to the EXTREME is dangerous, that is the issue.
Be it individualisim or collectivism.
You can validly define truth any of the above ways, and any other way you can prove has some philosophical or scientific merit, but it doesn't invalidate other definitions, which is good to remember.
The less flexible you are in your definition of "reality", the more likely you are to run into someone who will disagree with you, just remember that. LOL
If you like the realist version, and a lot of people do, because it feels safer somehow, then fine, it's perfectly valid, but not very flexible. Rigid realism can find you arguing with a lot of people that just don't see things as that concrete. Theory is where a lot of very concrete ideas originated, so don't be afraid of it. All things are theoretical until made material or practical. Someone had to imagine it first. Theory can be total bullshit too, of course, but hey, no reason to be afraid of it, still.
Yes, PS, what is scientific truth has to change as our science changes to adapt to the observable and the factual, what becomes known as we are better able to observe through technology or mathematical means. Before it was observable, through the use of the telescope, the reality for humans is that Pluto didn't exist, although it probably did, but it was unknown to us. If we don't know something is real, it might as well not be. Which is why our reality is a lot different than the reality of people who lived 3000 years ago. So...I'm going to take their advice on EVERYTHING and believe the same things they did? Nope, that'd be kind of stupid.
So, all that makes even scientific truth pretty conditional. If we invent a way to run a hundred miles an hour, through technology, then that will be true for anyone who has that technology, and real because it will then exist in our material universe, and factual because we will be observing it, too.
Boy, nailing down"the truth" can get pretty tricky, because the universe isn't that fixed. That's why there are so few universal laws, because when you get right down to it, the material world around us is pretty much in a constant state of change, and then we're changing it too.
What was "magic" a few hundred years ago is now science. Only because we know how it works, and they didn't. Amazing the difference new found knowledge makes to our reality, isn't it?
OH how I love a delicious discussion where people are talking about ideas!
Remember, DEFINE your terms BEFORE you go on to discuss them and you'll avoid alot of miscommunication!
Keep going! This is interesting!
My only truth is a simple one, " I know that I don't know, and I want to find it out".
Well, I have another truth, but I only talk about when the sun goes down, know what I mean baby?
*cue 70's porn music and barry white*
Group rights trump individual rights?
Hmmm ...
Where have I heard that before now?
Sylvia
AR was a good novelist and a shallow philosopher. She hated existentialism, and yet the basis of the most interesting work in physics is in harmony with it.
To me, Atlas Shrugged was her best work of fiction with philosophical underpinnings, but her a "Chair is a Chair" philosophy is narrow and shows what a stubborn and narrow egotist she was at heart.
