On 4/12/02 11:42:00 AM, Krysta Crippen wrote:
>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

I agree with your scenario, since everybody has a different view on what the truth is it is hard to come by the truth,becuase everybody has their own bias.