During our discussion last English class, we discusses a lot of interesting items, such as fractals, the fact that places can or cannot exists, and the fact that all truths are subjective. I talked about how a die will always show a number. This was an interesting topic to discuss with the rest of the class, especially when somebody stated that a die could be a cube with different colours on each side. I was able to rebut to this by saying that by removing the numbers from the die it is reduced to being a simple cube. Another interesting discussion was the one about the only objective truth being that all truths are subjective. I didn't get a chance to talk about this in the lesson, but I belive it would be a fun topic to discuss now. By saying that the only objective truth is that all truths are subjective, you create a pardox. It is akin to saying 'everything I say is a lie'. By saying that you are lying, which means that you can say some true things, meaning that what you just said was a lie. By saying that all truths are subjective, you are saying that they only apply at a certain time, meaning that there are no truths. By saying this, you are able to remove the fact that all truths are subjective from the equation, making it false.
Truth however, is never constant, as is demonstrated in We. People are able to modify the truth to talk about what they want to be shown. This is evident by O'brian being able to make the main character, Winston, believe that 2+2=5, even though it doesn't.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting that you considered truth "never constant." I all ways assumed that all truth were by rule lies, however thinking about it from what you have posted it makes more sense that, "it's not constant." I interpret this to mean that at any given moment, any given truth could very well be true. However I don't really agree that the example you gave shows that truth is never constant. I think that that shows that truth can be changed by the individual.
Thanks for the point of view though.
I see where you are coming from, in talking about how it doesn't show that its constant. I should have talked about how the Party was constantly switching the state that Oceania was at war with. Thanks for the comment and the opportunity to reflect.
ReplyDelete