My brother wanted to open the dialog back up, and started with some supposedly simple assertions, that most people would tend to agree with. With me though, I tend to find ways to disagree, it's called thinking outside the box. But I agreed with a few things, with reservations. That the past is fixed, but the future isn't, or has several possible paths it can take. The next assertion was to focus on the past being fixed, meaning there was only one set of circumstances that brought us to this point. He finished with restating this as there is only one past, or one truth, and pretty much broke off at that point, I guess for me to mull over. I didn't take any time to mull, however, and sent this reply....
One actual past doesn't necessarily equate to 'one
truth'. You are trying to take an attribute of a
concept, the 'past' being 'true', and equate it, make
it equal to, the concept itself. On top of that, you
are trying to take the adjective form of the concept
'true', which describes a condition, and make it a
noun. At the same time all the attributes and
conditions the adjective bestowed upon the concept of
past, it being 'true' are supposed to be attatched to
the noun, 'truth'.
In other words, the 'past' -is- 'true', is not the
same thing as saying 'past' = 'truth'.
I believe what he is trying to do is confer all the connotations the word true has as an adjective onto the very similar word truth, while combining all the attributes THAT word has as a noun. True as an adjective can only confer the 'true' qualities onto another concept, which can be absolute. In other words, the earth is round is a statement that is true. It says nothing about the word true itself, just the statement, which is pretty much absolute. What he is trying to do is bring that absolute quality and confer it onto the word 'truth' in this roundabout way. I assume this is all in an effort to then posit causation for the concept of 'truth', which would of course be some sort of higher power.
No comments:
Post a Comment