On 4/12/02 11:16:00 AM, Amy Hall wrote:
>Tompkins suggests that truth
>is in the eye of the beholder
>pretty much, leaving it all
>relative. I think her
>conclusion is a cop-out. Just
>because she couldn't find the
>truth does not mean that there
>wasn't one
>When she says that "any one
>fact is perspectival doesn't
>change its factual nature in
>the slightest. It merely
>reiterates it. (688)" I have
>to disagree. If three people
>see a car accident happen,
>each from an alternate point
>of view, every account will
>likely be different. Fair
>enough, every person is giving
>"their truth" but just because
>it is true to them does not
>make it true. There is really
>only one thing that has
>happened, even if it cannot be
>completely reached. Every
>person will doubt what the
>other has said, because they
>saw their side with their own
>eyes. Their perspectives
>distort the truth, but the
>truth is still there. Every
>person distorts it in their
>own way.
>Tompkins conclusion is
>relatively unclear to me, but
>I do believe that I disagree.

You are basically saying what I tried to say in my reponse. I liked the comparison to the car accident scenario, it helps to make the idea more clear.