Astralinre

Based on what you've said previously, such questions are absurd. There's no such thing as truth, so striving for or asking if you can know it is ridiculous. In my worldview, we can know the truth because Truth has spoken to us. We can know the meaning of life because life's creator has told us its meaning. We can know the laws of the universe through reason, because they were created by a reasonable being. This is the complete opposite of your worldview, in which it is impossible to know anything.

You're being inconsistent again. If truth is non-existent, scientists are not actually striving for it, because there is nothing to be strived for. So which is it, scientists are striving for truth, or there is no truth? I don't believe so. If there is no truth, then yes, humanity is absurd. Life is absurd. In fact, the logical extensions of saying that there is no truth make life unlivable. If you want a consistent view that doesn't drive you insane, you have to allow for knowable truth. Ok then, whats the point, whats the meaning of life? I don't believe you're ready to hear what I believe is the meaning of life. If you refuse to even acknowledges that truth exists, you'll flat out reject my view of life without even considering it.

I don't believe so. If there is no truth, then yes, humanity is absurd. Life is absurd. In fact, the logical extensions of saying that there is no truth make life unlivable. If you want a consistent view that doesn't drive you insane, you have to allow for knowable truth.

Personally, I think it should be smaller. Perhaps size 1 font? At least give the guy a size 2 font; he's earned it. Kayla, feel free to put his name right below my soon to be size 30 name. ;)

You just said there's no truth. If so, how can we get close to something that is non-existent? If so, isn't striving for truth entirely pointless?

Then why are you having a discussion? If there is no truth, shouldn't you just be tolerant and allow other people to have their views? If there is no truth, only an arrogant bigot would try to force his view on others. On the other hand, if there is truth, there is nothing bigoted in acknowledging it, is there?

Everyone has opinions, and you're dodging the question. Whether or not you have opinions has nothing to do with whether truth exists. Does it?

You don't really believe that, else you wouldn't be having this discussion. You are arguing that your point of view, that there is no truth, or that truth cannot be determined, is true. Also, you claimed that Ghost's point of view was wrong, or false. If you didn't believe in truth, you could not claim Ghost's view to be false, nor could you claim your own statements true, which you've done. A true statement is saying what is. It matches up with reality. A statement either matches with reality, or it doesn't, therefore it is either true or false. Agreed?

Truth = saying what is. Falsehood = saying what is not. If it is not a true statement, then by definition, it is wrong. Time for a basic lesson in logic: the Law of Non-Contradiction. This is a fundamental principle of logic. Something cannot be both A and not-A at the same time. For example, if I say that my right shoe is on my foot and is also not on my foot at the same time, my statement contradicts itself. Therefore, it is false. Is there such a thing as truth?

Is that a true statement?

My opinion is that [usernameofsomeoneonthisforum] is an idiot. Can this opinion be either true or false? Allow me to simplify. We are having a discussion. True or false?

Please explain. Allow me to rephrase. A simple definition of truth is "saying what is." Can we do this?

Masterdez, is there such a thing as truth?

He.

Considering that some opinions inherently infringe on others that will not be possible. You don't have to respect the opinion, but you have to respect the person to have that opinion I agree. Humans are all equal in essence and dignity. Ideas are not all equal in value. I agree with less lockage, and more public humiliation for immature flamers.

This is the definition of love I'll be using in this thread: Love is the disposition of the will towards the good of another person. It's accompanied by emotion, but is not purely emotion. It always leads to action on behalf of the beloved. It nurtures, builds up, and places the beloved above the lover. That said, I believe that loving someone is a very hard thing to do, and that humans can never do it perfectly. However, we should still strive to love - we cannot love perfectly, but we can love to a degree. Human love is always imperfect because it is, to some degree, based on need. We love because we need that love to be returned, or we pretend to love in order to get what we want. In any case, the lover's will is not purely for his beloved's good, but for his own good as well.

I think that really depends on the person. It's kind of like Conservatives vs. Liberals. You can't really say that either side is "correct", it comes down to how you feel about it and how it will effect you. While that may be, for the sake of discussion, I don't think such an answer is acceptable. It doesn't lead to more discussion, nor does it lead to a better understanding of the issue at hand. Allow me to rephrase the question: Which should take greater priority? By the way, Adam, I meant relationships in general, not just romantic relationships. ;) But to your point, is a romance devalued because it does not last or because it is "fake"? If so, why? I would say that every interaction with another person shapes you, and that it's possible for a failed romance to be almost as shaping as a successful one.

Adam's touched on an interesting point: Which takes greater priority - a high quality education or relationships with other human beings? Is the purpose of relationships to help with our education, or is the purpose of education to help with relationships, or are the two at odds with one another?

First, I would study ancient Hebrew. Then I would go back to the time of the ministry of Jesus and listen to his teachings.

Wait until you get to...12th I think? I'd call Hamlet Shakespeare's best work, by far. I read Hamlet, Henry V, and Much Ado About Nothing for my sophomore English class, and loved all three. I really can't choose between them, since they're all so good. I've also seen Kenneth Branagh's versions of all three - he's the man. :P

I would agree that human nature always remains the same, and a huge part of human nature in our depravity. I believe the problem stems neither from parents nor technology, but from a worldview that doesn't deal with that depravity and does deny human purpose. If nothing is truly wrong with depravity, why not embrace all it entails, which for some includes sloth. If there is no purpose, why bother working hard to get nowhere?

Yeah, but can't you overdo it? What about balancing that with other just as important things outside of what you can gain from a screen? I'd say you can. There has to be a balance of mind and body.

No, blame Brazil. :P Blame Europe. All of it. No, blaim China. Nuff said. Agreed. Ok, in all seriousness, I've also seen a problem with apathy in schools. I believe a large part of it comes from a lack of personal motivation. Students are no longer taught that there is any solid reason for education other than getting a job. Plenty of students either don't care about getting a good job or plan on having a good job that doesn't require education. In short, I blame apathy on an improper view of education.

No, blame Brazil. :P Blame Europe. All of it.

In keeping with popular teen attitudes, I'm going to blame the entire problem on George Bush.