LOL!!! Your interpretation of "boop" (you can call me "boopster" if you prefer) is right on the money, YHAOS!
But the problem of Truth goes much deeper than that. In an age of moral relativism -- and to me Truth has fundamental moral implications that cannot be evaded with impunity -- people cannot even agree what Truth "is."
This would be my own view FWIW:
"Truth is not a body of propositions about a world-immanent object; it is the world-transcendent summum bonum experienced as an orienting force in the soul, about which we can speak only in analogical symbols." [Eric Voegelin, in Order and History Vol. III]You can instantly see the problem: With the denial of the soul, Truth loses its connection to reality. In our age, both God and soul are strenuously denied among the more fashionable intelligentsia: They insist God is a superstition held by primitive, ignorant, "unenlightened" people; and soul is a similar superstition, a "ghost in the machine," or an epiphenomenon of the neural activity of the physical brain.
The problem is you cannot get the two sides of this issue "together" in rational discourse because they do not share the same world view at all. What you end up with is people just "talking past each other," as we see so often here at FR: In the end, it's a battle between "first reality" and "second realities."
But of course the problem surfaces in far more devastating ways, socially and culturally speaking. Because people will not agree about what Truth "is," our society is divided and increasingly more disordered, with the result (for example) that in wartime, some significant fraction of the American people works for the benefit of an enemy that would destroy us in an instant, if they could but get the chance. Still, these self-same folks would take great umbrage if you were to suggest they were acting "unpatriotically," let alone treasonously....
The "common ground of human existence" is destroyed when we can no longer agree what Truth is.... This, to me, is the single most horrific problem of our time. FWIW.
In short, Truth is the source of the "good order" of the soul, and by extension of society -- and also of the universe itself: Ultimately, Truth is One. To say that it is merely an "opinion," and that one opinion is just as good as another, is to deny the fundamental structure of all reality.
Thank you so much, dear YHAOS, for your reply!
BTW, boopster, thank you for the pingski.
Very excellent points. SO abundantly illustrated here on
redundantly redundantly again again.
So true.. Truth decided by "the Observer" (of truth).. is what FR is all about.. But "engrams" of truth can be transacted.. in the process.. So these discussions have some merit to lurkers I think.. The "observer" problem has so many sidebars.. not the least of which God is an observer too.. Observing "US"... Wonder if prayer about the observer problem is in order.. One would think its extremely pertinent.. God might us even recognizing that.. ya think?..
Yes. 'truth is difficult to know even absent attempts to erect a barricade or to assert a monopoly.' Let me add that the barricades are not always erected innocently.
"The problem is you cannot get the two sides of this issue "together" in rational discourse"
Yes. Demanding 'a good will and a collaborative effort' (or maybe it could be termed a cooperative effort.
"Because people will not agree about what Truth "is," our society is divided and increasingly more disordered, with the result (for example) that in wartime, some significant fraction of the American people works for the benefit of an enemy that would destroy us in an instant, if they could but get the chance."
Yes. And, I must report to you that I do not expect this to change during the course of what's left of my lifetime.
"Truth is the source of the "good order" of the soul, and by extension of society -- and also of the universe itself"
I don't know why I'm saying (writing) anything here; I should just nod my head and let you keep talking. { 8^)
"Truth is not a body of propositions about a world-immanent object; it is the world-transcendent summum bonum experienced as an orienting force in the soul, about which we can speak only in analogical symbols." [Eric Voegelin, in Order and History Vol. III]
On the discussion of truth and man's twisting of it in what is referred to as relativism, I had an interesting interchange with a post-abortive coworker yesterday.
She is always looking for opportunities to bring up her pro-abortion position and yesterday quoted to a third female coworker from an article in New Science magazine (I believe) that "ultrasound has now been proved to be harmful to babies" and should therefore be done away with.
Of course I see such comments as opportunities and I raised the point that perhaps New Science has a pro-abortion agenda and would like to see ultrasound technology abandoned so that expectant mothers who are considering abortion do not see their child in their womb.
And of course I was in turn accused of being paranoid and unscientific, of being out of the loop of the facts. When the post-abortive coworker again stated firmly that "this is being reported for the benefit of the babies, that they won't be harmed by ultrasound," I was blessed with words from On High to appeal to the sense of truth within her (within each one of us) - perhaps I wouldn't be remiss in calling it the "rules of logic" - which, unless a person's conscience has been truly seared and their heart forever hardened, does respond to absolute truth. She responded (by shutting up!) to these words:
"Think about this: they are saying that ultrasound hurts babies. At the very same time they are saying that abortion does not hurt babies. How can it be that abortion does not hurt babies but ultrasound does?"