Totalitarianist

Truth is totality comprehended. The whole is not always the sum of its parts. For example, if we divide a baby into several pieces, even although her constituent parts are exactly the same, just arranged on the table we cut her up on differently, she--or it--is no longer a baby; it was a baby. Again, what defines a cup is not the cup itself before our eyes, or through any other sensory organ; rather, what defines a cup is how it relates to everything else. The fact that we drink out of it, the fact that we pour water into it and I am sure a multitude of other things, is what defines a cup. What defines absolutely everything is how it relates to everything else. Take everything away from it--what defines it--and it, in a sense, loses its definition, and is therefore meaningless and nothing. Truth is totality comprehended.

It follows that the individual has less truth--less reality--than the state, and is therefore less important.

Edit: And that is why collectivism is truer than individualism.

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: Lady Anoteros ]</p>

Calvan

Trebaxian,

Would you be so good as to provide an example of truth?
Calvan

Starboy

Good idea Calvan. I would like to see that example also.

Starboy

Totalitarianist

An example of "truth" or an example of a truth?

Calvan

Lady Anoteros

I was thinking of an example of truth. I am asking to seek to gain some inroad to understanding your comments.
Thanks,
Calvan

Starboy

Lady Anteros:

How does one know that they have successfully comprehended the whole? Isn't there the possibility that something has been left out? Isn't your concept something that in practice can never be achieved?

Starboy

JP2

Lady Anoteros:

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the philosophy of Satre or Heidegger, but the way you're talking about "truth" (particularly with your example of the cup) seems much the same as the concept that Heidegger (firstly) and Satre (later) described as "facticity".

A cup is only a cup because that is the way it was conceived or created. There can be no cup before the conception of a cup in the mind of a creator. And the cup is forever defined in these terms: it is made of porcelain, it is used to drink liquids from and so forth. Therefore, what any object "is" can be defined in terms of this facticity and this facticity is forever "untranscendable": for instance a cup can never become a fork, nor can it be used to carry around heavy machinery. These two concepts (those of a fork and of an instrument used to carry around heavy machinery) are alien to the cups congenital facticity, and the cup can never adopt either of these concepts into its pre-ordained facticity.

But I wouldn't say, then, that the "facticity" of any object (i.e. the sum of all the qualities that make it what it is) amounts to truth. I agree - to a certain extent - that the facticity of anything can be adduced by examining its constituent parts, or by "relating it to everything else", but truth is slightly different. If you take away all the qualities that make a cup a cup, for instance, the cup loses its facticity - of that we can be certain, as it has ceased being a mere cup and has now become something else - but does that make this "new thing" untrue? If you smash a cup on the floor, the cup ceases to exist, but do the constituent parts? Are the shards of porcelain rendered meaningless or untrue?

The state may only be defined in terms of the individuals within it, but must the individuals be defined in terms of the state, or of the "collective" at least? Do I become "less true" if I refuse to adhere to the "greater good"?

Collectivism may be preferable to individualism from a moral, political or economic view-point, but I don't think that it's possible to justify collectivism using epistemological arguments.... but then I am ready to be proven wrong.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

All any individual has to do to realize that the state certainly DOES not have 'more truth' than the individual, is look at the actions of the state.

Keith.

dostf

Lady A.

- When viewed from a postion of the part, all things are defined in relationship to other parts
- when viewed from a position of wholeness, there is no such concept as "part"
- "individualism" and "collectivism" are both ideas stemming from a "partial" viewpoint--neither is correct
- Our problem as humans is to "pass" this "partial view"

Be seeing you...

Calvan

Lady Anoteros

I assume if truth is difficult to comprehend, it is not because “The whole is not always the sum of its parts”. It is because we are often unaware of the parts of the totality and/or we become willing to perceive parts that are not really parts at all of the totality.
The assertion that the “whole” meaning the “totality” is not always the sum of its parts describes what happens with belief systems that are skewed to create a predetermined “truth”. The whole, rather than being the sum of its parts, is the sum of some of its parts as well as contrived parts added into it. When this happens, the pursuit of truth is corrupted and what is perceived as the totality or truth is actually a combination of fact and invention.

I assume it is a truth for me to say that the baby was a baby before it was chopped up and that the cup was a cup before it was broken. Assuming that the facts are that some maniac chopped the baby and the cup was broken, the truth becomes what is left is a dead baby and a broken cup.
You assert that what defines the cup is the use we make of it and how it relates to everything else. What then defines the baby? I take it that you assert that the baby is no longer a baby because it is chopped up. Tell that to its mother! Does the dead baby stop relating to the mother because it is dead? Does the dead baby lose its definition because it is dead or ceases to communicate with the mother and therefore becomes meaningless and nothing to the mother? Would you say that totality is that the baby is dead and therefore the baby has less truth and less reality and is less important than anything else including the state to the mother?
What is the baby’s truth?
What is wrong with this picture?
Respectfully,
Calvan