Discerning truth

[Yorick]

This is not a thread about religion, but more about the approach to learning about others.

Chewbacca posted a link to a website in another thread. Long ago, disregarded anything the website had to offer on subjects I knew little of, because the subject matter I was familiar to, was incorrect.

I have read numerous books that attempt to cover the wide variety of human worldviews. Before I attempt to learn about areas I don't know, I always start with their presentation of the worldviews I either hold, or have had the most experience with. I have read many works that accurately portray those beliefs. I then move on to learn about new ideas and views.

I have found this to be a good rule of thumb.

If you're reading a travellers guide, start with what they're saying about your home town. If you're reading "faiths of the world" start with what they're saying about your faith. If you're reading about what it's like to have various career paths, I'd look at what it says about be a musician? I got much more out of reading about apes and monkeys, and three toed sloths AFTER I read what a particular source had to say about humans. [img]smile.gif[/img]

So, in short, Chewie, I meant no disrespect to you. You didn't write the site or contribute to it. It doesn't represent you in any way. I simply have found nothing of worth there, after finding error after error on the material I'm familiar with - as I am familiar with the source texts discussed, familiar with vast numbers of people adhering to the same source text, and experience of my own adherance to the source text.

A threefold foundation of understanding my own position.

That's all.

Cheers. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Yorick.

[ 08-27-2004, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Mouse]

If you truly want to make a start down the road to examining the concept of "truth" in philosophy, here might be a good place to start. However, a word of warning - reading this site could very well cause your brain to hurt

[Timber Loftis]

This statement is false.

[Aerich]

Everything in Life is true.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: This statement is false.

The following statement is true.
The preceding statement was false.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Mouse: If you truly want to make a start down the road to examining the concept of "truth" in philosophy, here might be a good place to start. However, a word of warning - reading this site could very well cause your brain to hurt

Not absolute truth - which I do hold to exist, but subjective truth about a given situation - in this case a set of ideas known.

One more aside, and then I'll move on:

Chewie, one can with clarity identify what the core theology of Christianity is. One cannot with clarity identify the totaly theology of every Christian. There is a difference. Not every Christian will hold the same Christian theology in entirety. The very nature of the relationship is that individual perceived truths become evident. (Even if the absolute truth doesn't). However, in looking at the stated and declared beliefs of each church, in reading the source work they follow, and especially commentaries about that source work that they follow, one can authoritatively speak about what those beliefs are, whether or not everyones personal theology matches up with it or not.

This is why I quoted Lewis for example, widely regarded as THE christian theological writer of his generation, who has a discourse on why he believes dualism is untruth.

[Yorick]

Mouse, I will add, that in psychological circles, it has been said, the actual truth is not as important as a persons PERCEIVED truth.

Key to resolving conflict.

"There's your story, there's mine, and in the middle is the.... truth."

[Djinn Raffo]

I am Spartacus.

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Yorick: This is not a thread about religion, but more about the approach to learning about others. Chewbacca posted a link to a website in another thread. Long ago, disregarded anything the website had to offer on subjects I knew little of, because the subject matter I was familiar to, was incorrect. I have read numerous books that attempt to cover the wide variety of human worldviews. Before I attempt to learn about areas I don't know, I always start with their presentation of the worldviews I either hold, or have had the most experience with. I have read many works that accurately portray those beliefs. I then move on to learn about new ideas and views. I have found this to be a good rule of thumb. If you're reading a travellers guide, start with what they're saying about your home town. If you're reading "faiths of the world" start with what they're saying about your faith. If you're reading about what it's like to have various career paths, I'd look at what it says about be a musician? I got much more out of reading about apes and monkeys, and three toed sloths AFTER I read what a particular source had to say about humans. [img]smile.gif[/img] So, in short, Chewie, I meant no disrespect to you. You didn't write the site or contribute to it. It doesn't represent you in any way. I simply have found nothing of worth there, after finding error after error on the material I'm familiar with - as I am familiar with the source texts discussed, familiar with vast numbers of people adhering to the same source text, and experience of my own adherance to the source text. A threefold foundation of understanding my own position. That's all. Cheers. [img]smile.gif[/img] Yorick.

Good advice we can all apply to our daily lives. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Oblivion437]

I think we all need to read this, most specifically, the section on fallacious relativism. It's a very fine line, and moral and logical relativists seem to dance as far on the wrong side of it as possible all the time.