On 4/12/02 11:21:00 AM, Robert Chase San Jose wrote:
>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.
>



The accident scenario was most definitely a help to understand what Tompkins was trying to explain but I do believe that the truth is out there but there is different perspectives of the truth