RE: There Are No Absolute Truths (Part 2)
You argue against "truth," saying it doesn't exist, but you never really define what it is.
A verifiable act or observation at given point in time.
I don't mean to be rude, but the whole article breaks down into incoherence and is unintelligible without proper definitions. I understand that you can't prove a negative, but in that case you shouldn't be using the terms of the negative, or you need to redefine them. I suspect you are trying to argue for relativism on some level and against fundamentalist religious ideas, but I think you need to use different language to do.
No worries. I always enjoy a good critique. This is part 2 after all and linked other ideas. I did not want to delve with complicated philosophical concepts but rather convey the average perception of things as experienced by most people. It wouldn't matter if I define the words since most people have their own definitions.
It seems like the purpose of the article is to stir up a general conversation of the subject, even if it is incendiary. I'm curious what you would think of the quote from Mahatma Gandhi, "Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth." It seems like you are putting forth your own, "verifiable act or observation," but if you don't believe truth exists or can be known, why do you care what anyone else thinks? Again, not trying to be rude, and I get that the article is meant to be provocative.
Indeed, the subjective truth.
no problem. i accept critique. harsh even. I try to get different perspectives. I don't enjoy moral absolutism.