|
|---|
This is an open forum where topics are supposed to be discussed rationally while respecting the opinions of those who might disagree with you. This forum does not allow the deletion of comments to your posts, even though you may be in complete disagreement.
The idea is that such comments will either reinforce your opinion, or open you to new ideas about it and perhaps help you to adjust it to one showing more understanding.
The exception to this is Flaming or blatant personal attack, which the Cafe will not tolerate.
Such remarks should be brought to the attention of a board member so that they can be documented and the flamer banned from the site. Please abide by this simple rule.
Our Board Members
tychecat,
BlackSockCerulean,
anniemomz,
thereluctantsinger,
sandstorms
Socrates
Café® Blog
Ring
Join our Socratic discourse.
For a complete index to previous Socrates Cafe topics, visit Simone's site and check her custom module.
Learn what you need to know about presenting your
ideas logically. Logical
Fallacies
The
Society for
Philosophical Inquiry
Copyright holders of Socrates Café. Good info on the
intent and purpose.
Read all about
it!
Socrates Cafe: A Fresh Taste of
Philosophy
By Christopher Phillips
Philosophy
Talk
Logical Reason on the airways.
|
|
| WHAT IS THE NATURE OF TRUTH?
Soc: A Critic
Thomas: A believer
Will: A psychologist
Soc: The nature of Truth was explained once by one of my pupils in a rather long-winded and obscure way, but I think he was on to something. He said Truth could not be directly perceived by humans - it was as if we were chained in a cave so we could only see the shadows on the back wall of things happening outside and could never turn around and see true reality. We could only imagine it based on our ability to reason.
Thomas: Well, he was probably right about humans not being able to see truth properly but he was wrong when he equated truth with the material world. Real truth exists only in God’s will. The material world is just our incomplete perception of part of His Will. Reason and faith will help us to know Truth.
Will: I think real Truth is discernible - you just have to consider the scientific evidence and our practical experience of reality - we have no other way except reason based on our own experience to know truth.
Soc: Can’t humans imagine things which may be true, even if they have never seen them?
Will: I think all things, both real and imaginary are based on some individual experience - you might imagine a new combination of ideas but not a new truth not based on your own experience.
Thomas: All our ideas are just manifestations of our nature which was, after all, determined by God, just a that state we know as “Material reality” is.
Truth is revealed by God and only God.
Soc: Others are reading this, I’d like to hear some of their comments on the nature of Truth. | | |
| This new format seems to have caught some interest. I'll continue it for a while.
Which topic[s] would you like to see Soc & co. discuss next, I suggest you get in on the discussions - Soc will be the regular moderator but the other characters may change from time to time - depending on the nature of the topic.
Any suggestions about which historic philosophers and thinkers you would like to hear from will be gratefully accepted.
Anyone who thinks this is an easy format to develop is invited to try it and send me your efforts - maybe we can get some interesting discussions.
An example might be: "The nature of Reality" discussed by Soc, Descartes, and Thomas Aquinas (good luck with that one  ) | | |
| Cast:
Soc - A critic
Ty - A tyro
BB- A rationalist
ALSO A lot of others - see the comments below
Soc: Is our world moving toward a single culture? We can travel just about anyplace on earth within a couple of days, communicate with most of the places in the world instantaneously, and almost every nation in the world has a presence at the UN in New York.
Ty: It seems like we are all inter-connected but we do after all, speak many different languages.
BB: Hey! Remember when we were in China and visited that rural school where the primary grades were learning English? I wouldn't be surprised if most of the English speakers in the world spoke with a Chinese accent in a generation or two.
Soc: Why would rural Chinese want to learn English?
BB: Because they see English as the world's commercial language and they want to be right up there with the most developed nations in the world. they and the Indians are good examples of how the world's economy is inter-connected and links the "developed" with the "developing" nations.
Remember all those English street signs in Tokyo? They see western as Modern and they want the modern life - they see it as the better life. Japan has been a "developed" nation for a century and is a good example of the "East-West" links.
Soc: You see modern as always better?
Ty: Well, we've conquered diseases that used to kill millions, the Western organized "Green Revolution" has kept millions from starving to death, more people live longer, are more healthy, and, I think, lead happier lives.
Soc: Don't they have to give up much of their much-loved traditional life style, some of their basic values, and a lot of what made them unique cultures?
Ty: I suppose that is a loss - but only if they think it is.
BB: Maybe some of what they are giving up isn't such a loss. The women of traditional Eastern cultures certainly have a better lot.
Ty: Suppose they are content with their secure position and don't want to change. How does any culture maintain its identity in this homogenizing world we live in?
Soc: Maybe that's the challenge - how do we maintain cultural identity in the modern world without fighting about it?
BB: So far - we don't. Isn't that what much of the world's present fighting is all about?
Soc: What should be lost? What should be preserved? How do we separate the good from the bad - and who gets to judge?
------------------
Well, that's the start of a new format I'm going to try. I selected this obvious subject because it links directly to some basic philosophic questions - please help continue the discussion either by comments below or at your own site.
If the latter, notify me here and I'll link you.
| | |
| This site seems to be seeing its last days - which to me is regretful as I think it has a role to play.
Much of the web's current play seems to be on quicker, flashier programs like facebook, twitter, youtube and such.
None of these allows the depth of discussion regular blogs do and certainly not any philosophical discussion - except sound bites - which aren't very thought-provoking.
Maybe I'll start posting direct philosophical essays here and see if response gets better - any thoughts? | | |
| While our current discussions are still ongoing (Check them out!), the time has come to select the next group.
I've included those suggested basic suggestions left over from last time as well as those rather light-hearted suggestions I've received this week. Please vote for Three.
What is:
a. beauty
b. liberty
c. trust
d. truth
e. freedom
f. faith
g. peace
h. happiness
i. What is the meaning of life?
k. What is a successful lifestyle?
l. What is self-empowerment?
m. What is the nature of reality?
n. "If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to witness it, does it make a sound?" Are perception and reality the same thing? Do people percieve events from separate or shared perspectives? What kind of event would create a shared global perspective? Is there such a thing?
o. The philosophy of Ice Cream, or "Are you/you are what you eat".
p. What is our reason for being?
q. Racial attitudes toward charity - Would the policy of "Never give money to White People" have merit?
| | |
|
Premium