Do you bow to the truth or bend the truth for you?

It is audaciously to assume that the truth bends for man.This would also mean that we could also bend the truth ourselves.

Of course we do the latter; For example by lying to deny.But denying it is as a rule a rhetorical trick that does not go over reality. The denial “I drove at all too hard with this car” can deny many aspects of this sentence without lying (the car can drive en. 200, 150 one finds not too loud, one drove not but raved etc.).

Also “There is no human hand-induced climate change” is such a rhetorical denial.It is often very difficult to describe the reality exactly, why the denial of this description is also easier than to give the description. Descriptions of reality also always convey a “phrase” or “intent” that is hardly any more in the description. We say “stick to the facts!”. But facts say nothing about any causes let alone something about the meaning or intentions.

That the Earth warms up is a fact, which one moved with 140 km/h on the freeway too.Facts are undeniable, they express what is the case. The denial marchants with the expression of the fact, not with what is the case, because that is the case and with it is not to Hagbe.One does not Marchant with the fact that it does not rain when the precipitates rains. However, that does not change the fact or what is the case. It just changes something to the expression of that fact.

So wine always has two truths.That is the case , on the one hand, and the expression of what is the case. How and that these two truths are in line with each other depends on the cherished conception of reality and thought.

As far as these views are concerned, there is indeed no right or wrong.What is, however, is that one cannot make statements without contradiction about objects which, according to one view, cannot exist according to the other, however,.

There are only three possibilities to substantiate the similarity between reality and thought.Either the reality is the yardstick, then there are no freedom, no purpose causes, no sentences, no gods nor statements about the soundness of this position.

Either thinking is the yardstick, then the own position is set and the other is a real possibility but not a reality.

Or a third is the benchmark.Traditionally, this is a creator god, or an entity that is singular in itself, however, multiple. After all, from the single can come nothing but itself, so no multiple reality. From the fact of the world and its reality , the plurality in the single (inductive) is implied.

According to the first position there are no statements that correspond with reality so lies/demarcations part of the deal.According to the second position, there are lies/negations that cannot be denied by reality, (partly) through the mind. According to the third position, the lies/disapprovals to bring the world further or To bring to its goal that can only be good but without content remains.

This is what claim truth can make.In every position the truth is relative. Edoch is saying something about this relativity, with the result that the positions know restrictions regarding the truth. And this ruling is not relative, but with respect to reality, thought and a schepergod.

Leave a Reply