Friday, January 20, 2006

A Truth about The Truth

If one believes his or her truth is The Truth it is he or she who judges The Truth of another individual by the sole comprehension of his or her own truth; ergo, another’s truth is The Truth to him or her, yet not to the one’s truth, so is there then an actual The Truth?

That means: if one believes his or her truth is The Truth he or she then holds others to his or her personal standard of his or her truth. Furthermore, one will or can easily forget or just plainly dismiss that his or her truth is not a universal truth but a single belief held solely by that individual and nought more.

One cannot pretend to know the full complexities of The Ultimate Truth because The Truth is not objective nor a particular thing, which one can reach out with his or her ardent or meager hand and touch it by physical fingers and/or understand it by mental capabilities; it is purely relative to one’s own path of life‘s experiences.

When one condemns another for his or her actions (mind they stay within the boundaries of the societal and governmental laws, if deemed justice or equal to the minority as well as the majority) or personal convictions based on his or her interpretation of The Truth and still holds him or her up against one’s personal truth without concerning that individual’s own belief in his or her truth, where then is The Truth?

Try wrapping your mind around this: ruminate how something can never go wrong, never break, never malfunction. The answer would be the most deplorable of answers, if one valued his or her humanity. The only way for everything to go right is for nothing to exist in the first place. For another example, what is veritable love? One would first have to acknowledge that love has a myriad of different forms, intensities, and expressions, so thence veritable love would be the sum of all of the forms, intensities, expressions.

So now, by the acceptance of The Almighty, Enlightening Truth, consequently, one would have to encompass all truths (not only his or hers); hence, the acceptance of all truths would thus prove that there is no The Truth.

To conclude: no one individual and/or group’s truth is beyond another, if there is even a truth, for The Truth exists only when there would be no truth. To be The Truth, one most be all, whereby the embracing of all would no longer be one, so that ascertains there is no one truth, if The Truth exists.


I wrote this to be my first column for this spring term for the Parthenon (campus newspaper); however, it was "too advanced," at least that is what the editor said. I have mixed feelings on the issue of ed-op piece in a newspaper. It is enough to make one question his career plans.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Advanced? another way of saying, "Excuse me sir, but I don't think this would look good to have in a paper with my name as editor." But then I don't know what kind of paper this is either, so he could have had other motives (Man, I ramble *frustrated*).

Yeah, If I had paid more attention when reading your site, I might not have been guessing as to your major. Well, there's an example of how observant I am.

Nice talking to you before. Didn't mean to seem like I was interogating you. Sorry 'bout that.

Anonymous said...

"Whether you're happy or feeling blue i've got a big old hug for you
So take it please, and give me one
'cause hugging is suck a lot of fun"

lol

i took it from a Dreamsicles angel hugs... i thought it was nice

bye my dear friend

Anonymous said...

yOU knotted my brain with THE truth not beinth THE truthunless there is No truth...reminds me of philosophy 101.

Anonymous said...

Wow.....Josh you are a great writer. I am disappointed that they didn't put it in the paper=( But it really is very good!