What is the relation between truth, opinion, and time? If we make a claim to "Truth" that does not stop being the truth, are we not forced to make a claim on the future?
Recon, if you will, imagine/opine/think of a harmony of all synergistically cooperating together/as one as that being a truth over time. In that regard truth is never defined at any one time. Then there will never be an interrogatory that questions. Difficult to imagine. I would say "yes" it is.
Imagine also never asking a question. Can you do that and what if all did that; each offering what they knew from their own perspective for another just to hear only. No argument over time. Please observe this definition of question/interrogatory from this one/other source:
"Questions about facts in a civil suit, which are submitted by one party to the other party or witnesses. These questions are asked under oath, with the questions and sworn answers being used as evidence in the trial. The court may submit questions and answers to the jury as part of the evidence. Court time is saved by the use of interrogatories".
Now who is that "court"? Is their opinion public or private? What is an oath? To tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Please offer justice to who can possibly say that much less, do that? "Save the court time"? Why? What's the hurry? Is that 'time' running out? Hmmm?
We think! Why and how we do that is a good question and there are no answers to that question. No one can define how or why we do that. Could it be fear of that time running out? Is there ANY evidence to support that other than what we observe in our own aging and death? Perhaps that is why we do that; because there are SO MANY QUESTIONS and SO MANY ANSWERS and the friction of mind that causes us to worry, stress, decay and die trying to find justice in all that IT is.
What is IT, you might ask? If WE only knew IT, things/that matter would be so much simpler, huh? Could "to question" be an invasion of a sort, we should not impose, that causes an imposition to any one?
Now again, if you will, please imagine/think/opine and then offer if time never ran out? If you could eliminate "that fear"? Could that be the greatest fear? Believe it or not if you could do that you would have no fear. I know that, because that is where I am so I know that place exists. The only anger I have is when others impose their fear on others and I witness it. They are damning/damming up another's ability to cooperate with this court that I AM. They can and will use what you say and do against you and they/we are good? at that too;.....................sad!
Now say that to yourself and only imagine we are nothing without others to share with. The truth awaits in the offering of one to the other in that sharing process and it never ends. There in IT is a balance we will find together and then life will begin. No trials, no errors, no truth or consequences of relative truth of any one there of to tell another to hear. My offering...................take it or leave it. That choice is yours and yours alone as it will be for all if they were free to do so. But of course we have to pay attorneys to speak it for us. All I can say is good luck if you have the ways and means to do that, ha! Then observe the battle of wits in that court, ha! Justice, my ass!
The more we invade, the more complicated 'matter/matters' become. For instance in our curiosity to define all things the longest word that has created has one hundred and eight nine THOUSAND letters/symbols in it. That word is called Titin/titan for short. That is a protein created by microcosmic investigation/invasion. Is that an indication of complication personified? You see, another question, huh? Ha!
Some might say that this kind of truth is impossible. If so, does this not leave us with nothing but opinions?
Someone like Kant tries to give us the unchanging structure of our otherwise changing experience. Or so is my understanding.
The more religious philosophers might talk of a God who created and exists outside of time.
Hegel suggest that truth must slowly evolve from opinion, within time.
So the argument. Define time? That period between alpha and omega? A beginning to an end? I can't think of that, can you my friend? That would to much too fast and too often to imagine all that between those too points if there are those two points to begin with, huh? Would you agree to that?
Aristotle (correct me if I am wrong) justifies his Truth with the notion that time repeats itself.
Time to change any notion of what time is if you are indeed correct and that is what this man thought. Nietzsche thought that too, or perhaps that is an innocent maliciousness carried forward because no one knows what time it is in the moment. You are right, it is nothing but an opinion by observation. Those Greeks did sow a lot of seeds did they not? Ha! To any receptacle that would receive them. Perhaps Nietzsche and Schopenhauer were birds of a feather, so to speak. They were very good friends, at least it was said by some they were. Perhaps too close might be an appropriate assumption here.
Schopenhaur seems to be in the same boat.
Yes, I agree. But then there was Wagner as it relates to Nietzsche coupled with Schopenhaur's contribution, those associations could confuse any one and why N. needed a "super man"? Perhaps we confuse what is meant by a platonic relationship when it comes to Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche and Schopenhaur, huh?
Recon what I think can be offered here that would give reason is in "in that time" men were admired by other men because of what they thought. Women are more reactive and intuitive than we and in that respect we/men mis-understood that adoration to an extreme in an effort to find that god in man with little regard to that Earth that is woman/mother nature. I offer for your consideration only. I offer that as it relates to what many philosophers offered in those times/as it is arguably written.
What is gay or homosexual in those times could very well be a respect for one another and not carried to the extreme as it is today by those who claim to be gay or homosexual and to assume the early greeks did is but an accusation to justify that later extreme behavior? Is there evidence of what is known of man's love for his fellow man as it relates to those sexual extremes available that is represent of those times?
I love my fellow man but I do not, nor do I feel a need to go to those extremes. So why do others? Could that be just an extreme lack of never being loved by a woman or a man in all ways that are not sexual and that sexual behavior is an expression of that dire lack? Granted we use the word love rather haphazardly and perhaps most do not know what love is but we can surmise something from those behaviors and there aftermath consequences. Without understanding that love between man and woman/heaven and earth we can only observe the hell of that lack of understanding.
Previously I have offered love can only be given from one to another and I for one to believe that, and that is what I do in all ways, and in that now, I experience no consequences, only joy from that. If all were so giving what kind of reality would avail itself then? Would dreams then come true?
For instance, the individual animal dies but the species remains.
I must apologize here, my friend, for here is where we differ as you carry that extreme assumption forward that WE are animals. In this respect Descarte was accurate in if we think that then that is what we become finding ourselves in the downward spiral/black hole the gravest of situations. I choose not to think that we are animals. IAM not that animal and I hope you will one day think the same. I will be forever and I again hope you feel the same as do I wish all to understand that and believe it. With that kind of faith one will never have anything to fear again. So let it be written so let it be done from that time on................forever.
You know I like the godly sound of that and for all I know that is He who is saying it, ha! I find a joy and a comfort in thinking that and I am sure once you do that, you will too.
Recon I mentioned in another thread in reference to those "lacrimal drops", if you will, allow me to offer a difference in the two tiers/tears of that understanding. The one tear if of a fear imposed; that of a sobbing nature and the consequence of bewailing and self pity as some lose what they thought they had and controlled to be their own when no thing, as a matter of fact, is. The other tear is a rapturing experience of a truth/epiphany reached to express a cleansing nature/purification process in the happening. Tears of joy, tears of sadness as they are, most definitely NOT THE SAME. One is heaven approaching one is hell occurring. Let us hope the latter rather than the former.
Or different kinds of government come and go, but humans remain the same. Natural science assumes without being able to prove (?) that the laws of nature do not change. (Is this correct?)
No government will and they must go and never return as it relates to one governing another. That's slavery no matter how one perceives that association to be. Nature has always been and evolves as it should in a progression we will never be understand as long a we are separate from that nature and govern/use/exploit/waste it. We will evolve with it only efforting to find that balance of it and us as those resources all of us and it is. Aah, A BALANCE, A HARMONY, A SONG, A RESONANCE, A WONDERFUL RINGING IN THE EARS. No Noise, No Commotion, No Much Ado About No Thing. SIMPLE AND TRUE. That's the way to get along on down the road or is it up the road? Level ground sounds good to me.