I also see truth as a relativity, close to an opinion, but not quite. And fact as unchanging.

You can solve a case on facts, you can't solve a case based on truths

If truth is just a relativity, it's pointless to call it a "truth." Just call it a relativity. And how do you differ truth from opinion?

John Harris I see truth as discernable and fact as measurable

Not if it's a relativity. That makes discernment irrelevant.

In my opinion, I would call truth a form of opinion, and opinion, an open ended statement based on your biases and experiences.

That didn't say anything. What kind of opinion is iit? What differentiates it from other opinions? because your definition of truths allows for biases and experiences, too.

Yes, I see what you're saying. So help me out, how would you differentiate between what is true, and what is fact?

Facts are events and other phenomena whose actual existence depends on their being True. Many truths like "you were cruel" or "you ended the relationship" are dependent on both factual truths and discursive truths which are the syntheses of facts.

What about the other side of the argument "You ended the relationship", is that not the opinion of one of the parties in the relationship?

Not if the other person was the one who cheated.

And if there was a misunderstanding, and no one cheated? Then who is the one ended the relationship? Whose truth do you believe?

How do you know what a relationship is? How do you define a "misunderstanding? You seem pretty confident in those.

I was just playing along with your original example, I wasn't really playing that far into the question. But dont avoid my question,

And if there was a misunderstanding, and no one cheated? Then who is the one ended the relationship? Whose truth do you believe? — Anonymys

↪John Harris I was just playing along with your original example, I wasn't really playing that far into the question. But dont avoid my question,

I'm not avoiding your question. I don't know what you mean by relationship or misunderstanding. What do you mean by those?

Ok, let's say a marriage, in the context of a marriage, one individual understood that the other was cheating, and then told the partner the truth about what was going on. Then the other partner retorts back with their truth. This is the misunderstanding and their truths. The fact is, the partner was not cheating, and that one of them called the marriage off.

That makes no sense. How is there a misunderstanding? Why is the partner who got cheated on telling the truth and how do they get to decide what the truth is? And if everyone always has their own truths, isn't everything a misunderstanding?

And that is where philosophy was born

In a certain sense yes, since philosophy deals with the truths, realities, and mysteries of human experience, language, and culture that cannot be reduced to factual answers. And yet the discursive elements of philosophy often hold greater, deeper truths than factual ones.

Thank you John, for discussing with me this extensive topic. I've enjoyed learning with you and will use your knowledge to my advantage in the future.

Thanks, man. I've enjoyed our conversation, too.

Thank you John, for discussing with me this extensive topic. I've enjoyed learning with you and will use your knowledge to my advantage in the future. — Anonymys

Thanks, man. I've enjoyed our conversation, too. — John Harris

Thank you both for your civility.

Why thank someone who's been incredibly uncivil on this forum in the one moment in which they happen to be civil, because their ego is being stroked? It's like saying to the whipping-post boy "Thanks for taking a quick break and giving me that sip of water!"

Positive reinforcement?

True. Thanks for your wisdom. But, as I mentioned, you're thanking him in the one rare moment in which he's being positive. I doubt your positive reinforcement here will actually have much effect. Psychologically, he's already made the decision to be positive, here, which is outside his general personality, in which he is generally extremely negative. So, props to you for staying positive here, but realistically, your positivity isn't going to change the personality of one "Thanatos Sand/John Harris".

So, will we see this positive approach play out with Thanatos/John? I certainly hope so. But what exactly can we do as philosophy forum posters? We're not psychologists. Also, we can't teach folks like Thanatos/John the simple basics of how to present arguments; how to respond simply to other's arguments; how to reason logically; how to address some of the more hairy philosophical problems.

I don't read the entire forum so I didn't know what I know now.

Aw hell, I'll let it stand. We could pretend it's a brand new day.

In the face of recalcitrance, there is only one course of action and every netizen knows what it is. It's been my policy -- just accidently broken -- for I think about two weeks now.

We could pretend it's a brand new day. — Srap Tasmaner

We don't even have to pretend; we have Sting:

In the face of recalcitrance — Srap Tasmaner

I often think of myself as recalcitrant, but Thanatos/John has ascribed an entirely new meaning to the word. He's kind of broken the word itself. Props...?

I thought I was going to really hate that when the harmonica entered, but there's something pleasantly middle-aged about this. I could still do without the harmonica.

What would you do if you found out that was Stevie Wonder? #askingforafriend

Rob, top five musical crimes perpetuated by Stevie Wonder in the '80s and '90s. Go. Sub-question: is it in fact unfair to criticize a formerly great artist for his latter day sins, is it better to burn out or fade away? — Barry

On the other not-this-topic, there's always SophistiCat's filter. (I miss the old days of newsreaders and killfiles.)

:-O I can't really tell what the context is here. It seems anti-Stevie though? (Be advised, I don't have a strong stake here; I'm a dirty fucking millennial).