To even speak of OBJECTIVE and RELATIVE truth is to commit oneself to a whole
quagmire of philosophical presuppositions that are of questionable usefulness
even if they make some vague sense and give people the feeling they are talking
about something profound.
I was alway impressed, in so
Ken,
I cannot say I know what you are talking about. But one item struck me:
> ...There are oodles of non-trivial true statements.
> "I am now composing a message re "truth"", "Some people can see. Some are
> blind." "Ottawa is the capital of Canada."
Ottawa is the capital of Canada? On what
reference atlas. (I am not claiming that one can do this for every case since
there are some cases where maps themselves will not be universally accepted
i.e. as Tibet being part of China etc.)
Hope this clarifies matters. My main aim is to question the whole idea
of relative truth and to defend a c
