----- Original Message ----- From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 12:13 PM Subject: Re: What is truth?
> > > > >From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: What is truth? > >Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 09:36:28 -0600 > > > >As far as I can tell, my point wasn't communicated to you. > > Far be it for me to read between the lines. I shall endeavor not to in the > future. Keep in mind that I am human though, and prone to imperfection. I was trying very hard to use neutral language. I was noting that what you wrote back as my ideas did not reflect my actual ideas....and allowed all possibilities for the source of the miscommunication, including my own writing. > >Proof is > >virtually impossible to come by without postulates being agreed upon > >beforehand. So, there is no way to prove much of anything to a full true > >skeptic. All I know without doubt is that I perceive, since I have an > >awareness of perception and a reflective self awareness of the perceiving. > >Everything else takes at least some faith. > > > Faith. Such a fickle word isn't it? > As for your thoughts on proof, well I couldn't agree more. The problem > however lies within the realm of faith. Instead of people unanimously > agreeing upon what would seem to be apparent truths, they revert back to > faith. And I find that quite perplexing. What makes the truths apparent but a shared faith? Let me bring up again, a shared faith statement from the foundation of the US. "We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." These are apparent truths that you argue against. From your other posts you appear to put a lot of faith in your own sense of what is true. That's OK, but why should I have more faith in your sense than in my own, or in the writings of people I respect? Dan M. > > > > > In order to cushion the backwash towards myself though, let me say that > >I > > > agree with you on the score of someone having "inherent worth as a human > > > being". That one stems not from morality I think, but from the fact that > > > life, in the grand scheme of things is rare. Or at least we cannot prove > > > otherwise at this point in time. Also, humans are the only sentient > >beings > > > known to exist, so there is something special, different about us. And > > > though torture is at the best of times cruel, the needless loss of life > >of a > > > human being is...needless. If I were born and raised in circumstances > >where > > > killing was commonplace, and completely ethical, I still think some side > >of > > > my intellect would have reservations. Though not reservations stemming > >from > > > morality, but rather from something unique being destroyed. There is a > > > difference. > > > >In a market economy, scarcity can give value. However, that's also a > >function of demand. Even more rare than sentience is anti-hydrogen. Is > >that more valuable than humans? > > Well that depends. Are we paying in American or Canadian dollars? A nice illustration of the difficulties inherent in the rarer-> more valuable argument. > >Paintings by me are rarer than paintings by Monet, does > >that make them more valuable? > > > >Dan M. > > > > Again it depends. Are they any good? Are you going blind? > > > -Travis "that's an easy way out" Edmunds > > _________________________________________________________________ > The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca > > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
