This is not an attack on Unordained's post-postmodernism. This is an attack on people who do not believe in truth. At least, I view it to be an attack on that...

Why is this important?

In the United States (and elsewhere as well), there is a difference between:

Law and Justice

The concept of a Human and that of a Person

The concept of Ethics and that of Morality (doing the right thing can be unethical (a Christian "prosletizing" at work), doing the ethical thing can be immoral (a defense lawyer putting forward a "possible" explanation for the crime that he knows is not true to get a man he knows is Guilty to be proclaimed Not Guilty).

There's even a separation between what is lawful and what is moral and what is ethical such that any combination is possible (Lawful, Moral, Unethical, etc).

So in the end, there's a separation between Law and Justice, Morality and Ethics, and Personhood and Humanity (by humanity, I mean Homo Sapiens Sapiens). Look for another article (used to be one article but I split the articles for easier reading) on this very important subject.

The Heart of the Matter

I match that up to the rise of a dangerous idea that I hear voiced all too often on college campuses. In English classes. "Subjective Truth." That's right. It's the Truth that isn't necessarily True....for me. This violates the fundamental logical Law of Identity (if a statement is true, it is true). Incidentally, if you don't buy the Three Laws of Thought, don't bother criticizing my logic. You don't believe in logic.

Note how important this is. The person who believes in Subjective Truth only knows for sure what they are perceiving and, frankly, even that isn't for sure. How does this person know that you exist? That reality is Real? They may believe that the burden of proof is on you to prove that you Exist, that Reality is Real, etc. This person is forgetting that they have abandoned logic for Subjective Truth. They disagree on the most fundamental level possible. There is no burden of proof because there is no proof because there is no logic. There may not even be an Earth. Given how little is proveable in a "world" with no logic, this person can live how they choose and no person can be their judge.

Some people think that Subjective Truth is merely another word (a poorly phrased one perhaps) for Perception. Other people think that Subjective Truth is a Domain, a Universe which we create for ourselves when we perceive. Perceive what you ask? I haven't asked since you cannot perceive that what does not exist but since it cannot Be True until you perceive it this creates difficulties. Some would argue that if a person is on certain drugs, he is perceiving that which does not exist. I would say that he is indeed sensing something that does not exist, but this cannot be perception. People who make this argument differ as to their definition of Perception.

Now, there's nothing wrong with Perception. I mean, besides the fact that it is the main weakness of Humanity. But it isn't inherently evil. The thing that I am worried about is that people actually believe in a world which has either an infinite number (funny, I never realized that "infinite number" is a contradiction in terms..lets suffice it to say a really big number) of paradoxes or only One Resident.

The reason I say that Subjective Truth is dangerous is that it is inherently meaningless if True (since it might not be true for me, I believe in Reality) and implicitly dangerous if false (it is terribly attractive because there is nothing by which anyone can judge you). Subjective truth is easily disproven by recursive application. Unfortunatly, for the people that believe in Subjective Truth, it may not be disproven for them, just for you.

The phrase "Subjective Truth" is meant to define something that a group of humans (possibly as small as one) has defined for one reason or another. Since we cannot prove definitively that a given definition is useless, we bicker amongst ourselves about issues when we aren't even speaking the same language. We may not even be perceiving the same thing. I mean...prove that we are. The only way I know to prove that we are is to force your reality on someone else like throwing a pebble at the person's forhead in as philosophical manner as possible.

The ironic thing is that we can't even really agree on what Subjective Truth is. :) Think about that for a while. It's funny.

Absurdity?

It fascinates me is that I have yet to see a man or woman who believes in Subjective Truth dousing his pants with water just in case they are on fire in someone else's reality. :) I guess that's probably because the water he may or may not be dousing his pants with may or may not exist in someone else's reality. What if they are not perceiving it? What if you don't even exist in their reality? If you douse your pants, make sure everyone in the room is watching and make sure you exist.

It's almost like the same people that tout this idea that there is no Reality (one that we all share) walk around as if there is one. I've never known one to commit suicide as a philosophical experiment for instance. I think they should not because if they did, they would be dead, but hey that's my epistomology. Anybody wanna play 'is there a God?'

It's madness. That or else you are a part of my imagination.....

ensis. Or maybe you. I think this was written by me.