2006-07-14 08:51:29 · 20 answers · asked by Oleg B 6 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
I think it's more that truth needs to be observed and acted upon. And more frequently. Things would run much more smoothly that way I believe.
2006-07-14 08:54:43 · answer #1 · answered by Rewsna 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Before we can defend Truth, we must know, for sure, what it is, and that is a question Philosophers have been struggling with for millennia. Most people's "self evident Truth", is some-one else's "blithering idiocy". What is Truth? A Roman governor once asked that question, and then washed his hands. Truth has never been a thing to defend, but to seek, and by the seeking to become a person better than you started.
2006-07-14 16:11:14 · answer #2 · answered by rich k 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well it depends on how serious the situation is. If it's a life or death matter, in which the truth is needed to be revealed in order to survive, then yes. But if the matter is not important, then I believe fighting to defend the truth is just pointless so long as you believe that it is the truth. It is a waste of time and energy if the matter is unimportant, because all that matters is what you believe for yourself. It also depends on how strongly you feel about the matter. Honestly it all depends on the seriousness of the situation.
2006-07-14 16:00:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What is truth for you, maybe it´s not truth for the other. It´s like beauty. It depends on the other person point of view. You think that someone or something is beautiful and maybe other people don´t think that way. However, I think truth has to be defended, If you are convinced of it.
2006-07-14 16:10:35 · answer #4 · answered by Glittering angel 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who's truth? And to whom? It definitely depends. A psyco's truth, a con's truth? Absolutely. A monks truth? Not so much.
And who's asking? An ex-girlfriend, a stranger, an enemy? Again; not so much. Or, is it a parent, an impressionable 2 year old child, a police officer? Then, perhaps, a brief explanation may be in order.
2006-07-14 16:13:48 · answer #5 · answered by Kitten2 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Truth speaks for itself with such force that it cannot be questioned. The problem is, what do you call truth? Truth comes from God and only God. All else is either a footnote to God or it is a lie. God never has to be defended. The Bible never defends God because the Bible is God's revealed word.
2006-07-14 16:05:02 · answer #6 · answered by Preacher 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Because in this post modern world of relativism, objective truth has been rejected. If there is no absolute truth, then no one can claim their truth any more truthful then the next person. But truth is objective and independent of us. For example, gravity, if anyone wants to say gravity is relative as a law, it would only apply to the degree of affect, but not the law itself. Mathematics is another good example of absolute truth, numerical values are constant, geometric postulates are unchanging. Infinite is always infinite. These are absolute truths that exists beyond our subkective views of truth.
2006-07-14 16:45:45 · answer #7 · answered by tigranvp2001 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ABSOLUTELY NOT !
This really struck a chord with me, as this is something I have just decided for myself: I don't believe truth needs to be defended, if you defend it, will it really make a difference to the person you are defending it to. If they trusted and believed in you they would not require you to defend it, they would believe it because of their trust. The more you defend something, the more you are expected to defend it.
2006-07-14 16:14:26 · answer #8 · answered by celtic-tides04@sbcglobal.net 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not when everyone knows what the truth is. Unfortunately, truth seems to be subjective in this day and age. It really depends on who you are getting your information from. It doesn't change what is true and what isn't, but just remember that it is the victors who always write the history.
2006-07-14 15:56:12 · answer #9 · answered by Bryan 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Even if the assignment of 'truth' can in fact be extricated from delivery, which it cannot, then there still remains the issue of forming a basis on which resulting interpretations can be calibrated. Within the many permutations of meaning, as entrenched in socioeconomic parameters and cultural phenomena, there are by nature gradient deviations which can only conform to and be understood within the context in which its original meaning was derived.
2006-07-14 16:06:01 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋