From: ChuckKuecker (ckuecker@mcs.net)
Date: Sun May 17 1998 - 08:26:00 MDT
At 10:37 AM 5/16/98 -0400, you wrote:
>
>I do not think truth is completely separable into neat areas -- science,
>philosophy, politics, ect. I think philosophy is basic beliefs. By "basic
>beliefs," I mean stuff like the nature of existence and of knowledge.
>I consider these the What and the How of philosophy. The nature
>of existence tells us, in general (because the sciences and history
>tell us specific facts) what is, while the nature of knowledge would
>give us methods of knowing as such (whether of general or specific
>facts).
>
>Does anyone agree with me here?
>
That was my point! Agreement on the definition of truth is the crux of the
argument. What one calls truth maty be another's empty speculation or
outright falsehood.
As with most of the language, despite what the dictionary says (some times
because of it!) different folks used different definitions.
As far as history goes, remember that the winners usuallyy write the
history books, and even if reports from others survive, it's anyone's guess
how accurate they were. Once all the eyewitnesses die off, history gets
muddy past what artifacts actually survive.
Chuck Kuecker
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:06 MST