Is Everything Relative Including Truth?

Discussions on the nature of being, existence, reality and knowledge. What is? How do we know?

Is truth

relative
5
31%
absolute
5
31%
something in between
6
38%
 
Total votes : 16

Is Everything Relative Including Truth?

Postby rrushius on October 4th, 2006, 9:35 pm 

http://www.eequalsmcsquared.auckland.ac ... -truth.cfm

Ray Bradley

Title: Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, Simon Fraser University; formerly Professor of Philosophy, University of Auckland (1964-69)

Website:
http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/bradley/bradley.htm

Philosophy of Science

Is Everything Relative, Including Truth?


People sometimes say "Einstein showed that everything is relative", and then - since the word "everything" obviously includes the notion of truth - conclude that Einstein showed that truth itself is relative.

In reality, Einstein neither showed, nor claimed to show, any such thing. And even it he had, his saying it wouldn't make it true.

But what does it mean to assert that truth is relative? What does it mean to deny that truth is relative? And is the doctrine that truth is relative itself true or false?

WHAT IS TRUTH?

Before asking whether truth is relative, an astute thinker will want to begin by asking what we mean by "truth".

But even this question poses difficulties. After all, one of the Bible stories tells us that when Pontius Pilate asked the question "What is truth?" even Jesus (the "Son of God") didn't venture an answer.

It is easy to get one's thinking about such abstract matters tangled up.

The ancient Greek philosopher, Socrates (477-399 BCE), liked to pose questions in highly general, abstract terms. What is Justice? What is Beauty? What is Goodness? And so on. Not surprisingly, many who tried to answer tied themselves up in knots. And so it is also with the highly general question: What is truth?

So let's start with a simpler question. Instead of trying to think in terms of the abstract noun "truth", let's switch to thinking about the use of the adjective "true" as it occurs in sentences such as "That is a true statement" or "What you say is true".

Our question now is: What does it mean to say that a statement (any statement) is true?

THE NOTION OF SIMPLE TRUTH.

Socrates had a distinguished pupil by the name of Plato (427 - 347 BCE) who left us with many reports of his master's thinking. And Plato in turn had a distinguished pupil by the name Aristotle (384-322 BCE), the philosopher who for a time was teacher of Alexander the Great. It was to Aristotle that we owe a beautifully simple and sound definition of what it means to say that something is true:

To say of what is that it is or of what is not that it is not, is true . . .

And he went on to define what it means to say that something is false when he continued: . . . while to say of that which is that it is not, or of that which is not that it is, is false.

This, of course, is a strict translation of his words, so it sounds a bit foreign to modern ears. But we can convey his meaning even more simply by saying:
A statement is true if things are as it says they are; otherwise it is false.

Or, a bit more expansively:
A statement is true if things in reality are as the statement says they are; otherwise it is false.

There is nothing terribly perplexing about this simple definition, which philosophers sometimes call the "Simple" or "Realist" or "Absolute" account of truth.

According to this definition we obtain the following sorts of results:
(1) It is true that snow is white if and only if snow is white.
(2) It is true that John believes that the earth is flat if and only if John believes that the earth is flat.
(3) It is true that the universe began with a Big Bang if and only if the universe began with a Big Bang.
And so on, for all the infinitely many possible statements that one can "plug into" the schema: "It is true that P if and only if P" (where the letter "P" stands for any given statement whatever).

The simple account of truth makes truth (and falsity) a function of (i.e., a consequence of) what the world is like, not of what we happen to believe about the world. It says that the truth or falsity of a statement is an "objective" matter. It is not a function of what we believe or perceive; i.e., it is not, in general, a "subjective" matter. Thus, even the truth or falsity of statement (2) - about what John believes - is a function or whether in reality John does have that belief. If it is true that John believes that the earth is flat, then it is objectively true that he has that belief. Likewise, on this account of truth, the truth or falsity of statement (3) - about the origins of the universe - is a function of whether in reality the universe did begin with a Big Bang, even though we don't yet know for certain whether this (cosmological) theory is true or not.

In general, on the simple account, truth - unlike beauty, in some people's view - does not lie in the eye of the beholder. Nor does it lie in the beliefs of a believer, or in whether or not we know what the facts are. Believing something to be true does not make it true, for beliefs themselves can be false as well as true.

Most people, unless their thinking has been influenced by bad philosophy, will readily accept this simple notion of truth. Einstein was one of them. He believed in the existence of what he called "objective reality": a real world that exists independently of our subjective perceptions, conceptions, or beliefs. He believed that a statement is true if and only if objective reality is as that statement says it is. And he believed that the business of science is to discover truths about objective reality. As for Einstein's Relativity Theory: this is a doctrine about inertial frames in physics. It is a physical theory, not a philosophical one. It has no implications whatsoever for the claim that all truth is relative.

THE ALLEGED RELATIVITY OF TRUTH.

So why, apart from a misplaced appeal to Einstein's authority, do so many people - many Postmodernist philosophers included - insist that truth is relative?

To claim that truth is relative is to claim that the very same statement can be both true and false, depending on one's point of view.

Ironically, most of the reasons given for relativism stem from the fact that it is a simple, objective, truth that different people may differ from one another in the ways they perceive or conceive the world about them, and may differ, therefore, in the beliefs they have about the world.

PROTAGOREAN RELATIVISM.

Thus a pre-Socratic teacher by the name of Protagoras (approx. 490 - 420 BCE) came to the conclusion that all truth is relative on the basis of his observations about the relativity of human perceptions. What tastes sweet to one person may taste bitter to another. What sounds melodious to me may sound cacophonous to you. And so on.

Protagoras singled out one example in particular to illustrate his point. Suppose you and I are standing in the wind. Then it may well be true (objectively) both that
(4) The wind feels cold for me
and that
(5) The wind doesn't feel cold for you.
Now it is clear that (4) and (5) are equivalent respectively to
(6) It is true that the wind feels cold for me
and
(7) It is false that the wind feels cold for you.
So far so good.

But then Protagoras draws a fallacious inference. He argues as if (6) and (7) were equivalent respectively to
(8) It is true for me that the wind feels cold
and
(9) It is false for you that the wind feels cold.
After all, (7) and (8) differ from (6) and (7) only in the placement of the little expressions "for me" and "for you". Yet (8) and (9) seem to say something quite different from (6) and (7). Statements (8) and (9) make it look as though the very same statement
(10) The wind feels cold
is both true and false. Protagoras expressed his relativistic conclusion in the famous words:
Man is the measure of all things, of the existence of things that are and of the non-existence of things that are not.

Protagoras, as it happens, was one of the first so-called "sophists", teachers who hired themselves out - usually for a large fee - to those who wanted to learn the art of persuasion, often for political purposes. They prided themselves on their ability to use language in such a way as to confuse their opponents, even to the extent of appearing to "prove" that black is white. Not surprisingly, their services were often sought in the law courts of Athens. Today, we use the term "sophistry" to describe the sort of fallacious inferences that characterised their arguments.

SOCRATES' REFUTATION OF PROTAGORAS.

Socrates, who cared deeply about truth and was contemptuous of those who used words in careless ways, did much to expose the sophistical nature of Protagoras's reasoning. As portrayed by Plato in his dialogue Theatetus, Socrates refuted the notion that all truth is relative by means of a number of devastating criticisms:
* On Protagoras's own argument, truth is relative not just to man but to any sentient being whatever, even a tadpole.
* Protagoras, on his own showing, is no more of an authority about the nature of truth than is any other man, or even a tadpole.
* If everyone is equally right about what is true, then no-one is ever either ignorant or mistaken in his opinions.
• If everyone's opinion is true, then so is the opinion of anyone who says that Protagoras's opinion is false. Hence the doctrine that all truth is relative is self-refuting.

RELATIVISM IS SELF-REFUTING.

The simple fact of the matter, of course, is that relativists who assert the truth of
(11) All truth is relative
really want us to believe that (11) is not itself a relative truth (since then it would have no more claims to being true than to being false) but an "absolute" (i.e., an objective) truth. They really want us to believe that all truths other than (11) are relative. But if all truths other than (11) are relative, then (11) is not true after all. Rather, it must be false.

THE NOTION OF ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

Was Socrates, then, defending the idea of absolute truth?

If, by "absolute truth", one means non-relative truth, then the answer is: Yes. Socrates, and his non-relativist followers, would want to say that if a statement such as:
(12) The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second
is true at all, then it is "absolutely" true.

So would Einstein. Indeed, his Theory of Relativity, properly understood, asserts that statement (12) is an absolute truth, not a relative one. For it is a consequence of his theory that the speed of light is a constant. That is to say, the speed of light - like the other laws of physics - does not vary between one inertial system and another but is exactly the same within all inertial systems.

Whereas, according to a relativist, the truth of a statement like (12) can vary from person to person according to who utters it, Einstein holds that the truth of (12) is an absolute: it is true (absolutely true) no matter who utters it or in what inertial system they are located.

Any relativists who think they can derive support for their views from Einstein's physical theory, have simply not understood what his theory says.

THE MORAL OF THE STORY.

The moral of this little philosophical story, of course, is that one must beware of generalizations such as "Everything is relative", especially when they derive from a failure of comprehension. They can, and often do, lead to muddled thinking and even absurdity.
rrushius
 


editor's notes

Postby galatomic on October 6th, 2006, 10:05 am 

"After all, (7) and (8) differ from (6) and (7) only in the placement of the little expressions "for me" and "for you".

You might want to fix the typo above to read - "After all, (8) and (9) ... "

galatomic, paying attention.

This is a nice patient development of the ideas keep it going.

galatomic
galatomic
 


Postby DIANA on October 6th, 2006, 1:58 pm 

To the question, "Is everything relative, including Truth ?"

If you answer "yes", then what does it mean to say that statement is true ?

One common argument against relativism suggests that it inherently contradicts itself, for the

statement "all is relative" classes either as a relative statement or as an absolute one.

If it is relative, then this statement does not rule out absolutes.

If the statement is absolute, on the other hand, then it provides an example of an absolute statement,

proving that not all truths are relative.

Another argument addresses the effects of such a concept :

As an idea, this argument contends, relativism has the sole social value of making everyone equal by

taking away any rules, thus resulting potentially Social Darwinism.

Every idea has a dark side.

We need to be aware and carefull. History shows that mankind has come up with bright ideas, but

the dark side always seems to tag along. We have a great capacity for screwing things up !

This concept can lead to a doublethink : The problem of negation also arises. If everyone with differing

opinions is right, then no one is. Thus instead of saying "all beliefs (ideas, truths, etc.) are equally

valid," one might just as well say "all beliefs are equally worthless".
DIANA
 


The Import of the Poll Results

Postby galatomic on October 6th, 2006, 2:10 pm 

What if the results of the Poll are "True"?

If a majority voted for "Truth" is "relative" then of what import is the Poll result?

On the otherhand, if the Poll majority was for "Truth" is "Absolute" then case closed.

If a majority voted for "Something in between" and those results are "True" then I ask in what sense is this "Something in between Truth" neither "True Absolutely" nor "True Relatively"?

galatomic
galatomic
 


Postby rrushius on October 7th, 2006, 1:50 am 

I think that in a way we can talk about different layers of truth, beyond the idea that if someone believes x is true, it does not mean that x is necessarily true. It only means that it is true that the person believes that x is true. The problem with this view presents us with the further dimension of truth, to which it seems to me it is done too much damage in order to split it off from the main trunk and represent it as naturally different. Provability! I think it is an arbitrary division which allows for many wrong assumptions to stand and even permit them to look us straight in the eyes and doubt our own existence before we start doubting theirs, in other words they become so absolute that the person becomes small before them insignificant, his nature fallacious, untrustworthy, while reason is elevated to higher grounds of purity as if reason was something separate from the subject that is producing it, and as if one could ever somehow keep in check all one’s motivations behind one’s reasoning. Instead of saying that truth can never be found, we now have found a way to still resonate our old wishes to control the world by knowing it, by saying that it is not that truth can never be found, it is just that it can never be proven.
So then, supposing that someone believes that x is true, and that as we stated earlier, the fact of the matter is that it is only true that someone believes that x is true and not his belief, than this truth about someone believing that x is true is only true by way of our supposing it. Because it can never itself be proven either, just like that someone that believes x is true cannot prove what he believes, so then we cannot prove that he believes so if he decided to say that he no longer believes in it.

In general, on the simple account, truth - unlike beauty, in some people's view - does not lie in the eye of the beholder. Nor does it lie in the beliefs of a believer, or in whether or not we know what the facts are. Believing something to be true does not make it true, for beliefs themselves can be false as well as true.


I am going to ask what is then that makes it true. And whatever one can come up with if not proven, isn’t it then no matter how eloquently it is laid out just a belief when compared to the statements that others may make? Although accounting for most of the observed phenomena even the best theories are flowed in the face of time. In ancient times people of course believed their theories the mistakes and errors of which may be exposed today, but this only shows that the same may happen to the theories of the day and if one imagines this process going on for a long time than it becomes apparent that we got more misunderstandings than truths in our theories. And this does not only show that truth is simply incomplete as some might like to think, but that it contains a great deal of lies in it, or if you will we shall call it untruth. In fact it does seem that the untruth is bigger than the truth and there is of course the further problem of there being no guaranty that we are actually going in the right direction anyway. But before you feel somewhat uneasy about this and feel the need to throw at my face a few arguments and examples which I may have overlooked, stop for a second and think which one came first, was it your reasoning, or a feeling behind it that in reality guided your reasoning?

Most people, unless their thinking has been influenced by bad philosophy, will readily accept this simple notion of truth. Einstein was one of them. He believed in the existence of what he called "objective reality": a real world that exists independently of our subjective perceptions, conceptions, or beliefs. He believed that a statement is true if and only if objective reality is as that statement says it is.


This I don’t think I need to comment on myself as Pesla did point out earlier, it is the difference between the true and the real which has become confusing. The objective reality is in fact what Lacan calls the real. For a statement to be true it needs to be loyal to objective reality, but we know that reality changes. Than the truth has to change in order to capture the real. And it does change, we know that. But isn’t this the main characteristic of relativity? It is important to note here that we are not simply talking about the incompleteness of truth but its need to change in order to mirror observed changes in the real. And since I used this word, I’ll indulge in a little analogy pointing out that the images in the mirror are not the same as the real thing being reflected, no matter how accurate that reflection may be.
rrushius
 


"Truth" is what we mean by what is "Real"

Postby galatomic on October 7th, 2006, 8:04 am 

rrushius,

"Truth" is not your word to have and mold to suit your idea of "Truth". The examples you give do work toward persuading us of your relativist position toward "Truth" v.s. "Real". But there are other examples which argue for the opposite, indeed they argue for "Truth" as an absolute. For one example, what we mean by the "past" is unchangeable and therefore statements can be constructed about it that are either true or not in an absolute sense. Newton lived and died before Einstein was born. You could argue that time travel will rewrite the past then I say that is not the kind of "Past" I am talking about. I am talking about what in history is unchangeable and that is what we mean by the "past".

But the bottom line is not your judgement of the status of the changing conceptual models of the cosmos. It is what do we mean as a community by the word "Truth". It is the community that decides this and to argue that the community is mistaken is to con the community into thinking they don't mean what they mean and they should reconsider their use of the word to conform to your insights about the status of conceptual "Truth".

You can cast doubt on all "Truths" that have been uttered so far but we can still have a word "Truth" that means that which correctly and absolutely describes the "REAL". Just as we aspire to have a "Heaven" on earth you can't steal the word "Heaven" from us just because we have up till now fallen short.

What you mean by "Truth" is "Hypothesis". I knew "Truth" and he was not at all like "Hypothesis".

galatomic
galatomic
 


Re: "Truth" is what we mean by what is "Real&

Postby rrushius on October 7th, 2006, 12:09 pm 

galatomic wrote:rrushius,

"Truth" is not your word to have and mold to suit your idea of "Truth". The examples you give do work toward persuading us of your relativist position toward "Truth" v.s. "Real". But there are other examples which argue for the opposite, indeed they argue for "Truth" as an absolute. For one example, what we mean by the "past" is unchangeable and therefore statements can be constructed about it that are either true or not in an absolute sense. Newton lived and died before Einstein was born. You could argue that time travel will rewrite the past then I say that is not the kind of "Past" I am talking about. I am talking about what in history is unchangeable and that is what we mean by the "past".


Galatomic, I was never so full of myself as to claim a word, any word for myself. Not even rrushius, although I use it from time to time. As I showed you with the changes of the nick Galatomic, I can say that you also are not the only owner of that name, and the same phrase, word, sentence may mean different things to different people. I did not mean to simply persuade, although most times I feel that is the most we can do. The example of the past Galatomic, although I would feel very inclined to agree with you, for like you I also want to have some ground under my feet, I would agree upon only as a set concept from which we can speak. I am not saying that your example is wrong, but in this discussion although many would feel inclined to use it, I would direct your attention to its provability. In fact although it seems that it is obvious already and one needs not prove it, I am talking not about a legal proof since the law makes use of a positivist mode of thinking, but about the philosophical proof such as, can we prove even our own existence? And I know that simply by posting here for example I have not proven anything. If we cannot prove our own existence how can we talk about history since history is simply part of our past existence or an implication of the knowledge of our present existence about the past. I know that your words make sense Galatomic, they make sense to me, but what I am saying is perhaps the ultimate philosophical question, beyond the one that asks where do we come from, and the whys. This is Nietzsche's question which I have quoted a few times but apparently no one has given it the attention it deserves.

"It is not more than a moral prejudice that truth is worth more than mere appearance; it is even the worst proved assumption in the world. Let at least this much be admitted: there would be no life at all if not on the basis of perspective estimates and appearances; and if, with the virtuous enthusiasm and clumsiness of some philosophers, one wanted to abolish the "appearent world" altogether-well, supposing you could do that, at least nothing would be left of your "truth" either. Indeed, what forces us at all to suppose that there is an essential opposition to "true" and "false"?.... Why couldn't the world that concerns us- be a fiction? And if somebody asked, "but to a fiction there surely belongs an author?"-couldn't one answer simply: "why?" Doesn't this "belongs" perhaps belong to the fiction, too?" Nietzsche, "Beyond Good and Evil."

But the bottom line is not your judgement of the status of the changing conceptual models of the cosmos. It is what do we mean as a community by the word "Truth". It is the community that decides this and to argue that the community is mistaken is to con the community into thinking they don't mean what they mean and they should reconsider their use of the word to conform to your insights about the status of conceptual "Truth".


These lines Galatomic if read right after the words of Nietzsche, only seem to support his concept, that absolute truth nothing more than a moral prejudice construed by society.

You can cast doubt on all "Truths" that have been uttered so far but we can still have a word "Truth" that means that which correctly and absolutely describes the "REAL". Just as we aspire to have a "Heaven" on earth you can't steal the word "Heaven" from us just because we have up till now fallen short.

What you mean by "Truth" is "Hypothesis". I knew "Truth" and he was not at all like "Hypothesis".


And I say Galatomic that I don't know truth. Show me truth. But the truth you are going to show me is never going to be but your truth, isn't it?
rrushius
 


Word Meaning is Determined by Use

Postby galatomic on October 7th, 2006, 3:09 pm 

I do get your point rrushius but only because you have this knack or skill to dislodge the single mindedness of the voice of our engagement. When I read you carefully it calms my usual urge to be defensive about what I feel are important, almost vital, issues that must be resolved between us in order to make any philosophical progress.

Even so I feel we disagree on something that is minor from most perspectives but is yet vital from at least one important perspective. Since I’ve been doing a lot of gardening I’m full of gardening analogies to help me with the bigger picture.

Right now, this time of year, the tomatoes that still are managing to ripen often suffer in that blessed act from the cracking of their skins. If I go to the garden and eat that tomato was there any great significance attached to that imperfection? I can’t find a single drawback in taste, nutrition or even the more subtle aesthetics for the ruptured skin has its own charm to appreciate.

The problem however, is one of taking the full measure of the tomato, its Dasein, in the context of its possible uses as something more than just what it is to me standing before it in the garden readied for consumption. This narrow view is Descartes’ analysis that results in some stripped down essence of the thing to differentiate it, with all good intent, by its uniqueness. However the analysis is fatally flawed by how it has been taken out of its natural context specifically to improve the clarity of analysis but backfires because its full relationship to the world is lost to kidnap.

The tomato with the cracked skin doesn’t survive a ride to my daughter’s house in town so that I can share its deliciousness with the family at suppertime and its marketability is less than the zero of the void. So we, and everything else in the world, are only completely defined, or understood, as we exist in relationship.
:Nietzsche: "It is not more than a moral prejudice that truth is worth more than mere appearance; it is even the worst proved assumption in the world. Let at least this much be admitted: there would be no life at all if not on the basis of perspective estimates and appearances; and if, with the virtuous enthusiasm and clumsiness of some philosophers, one wanted to abolish the "appearent world" altogether-well, supposing you could do that, at least nothing would be left of your "truth" either. Indeed, what forces us at all to suppose that there is an essential opposition to "true" and "false"?.... Why couldn't the world that concerns us- be a fiction? And if somebody asked, "but to a fiction there surely belongs an author?"-couldn't one answer simply: "why?" Doesn't this "belongs" perhaps belong to the fiction, too?" Nietzsche, "Beyond Good and Evil."

Nietzsche was considered the last of the Metaphysicians just because he exposed this bias that inevitably comes from the declaration of a persona engaged in the intimate scrutiny of things taken out of context. His own solutions were quite pathetic however in light of finding a way out of the morass or abyss that was the inheritance of his analysis. He was, in this regard, just a transitional voice that exposed the hypocrisy by being himself hypocritically louder and demanding of an end to it.

It isn’t really until Wittgenstein that we were able to get our hands on the foundations of language in the “community” that we were able to extricate ourselves from the devastation of philosophy left to us by Nietzsche.

Once Heidegger raised our stature, and by implication the stature of all things, to what we are in the “context” of our being; Wittgenstein extended those insights into the nature of language and how it only exists in the “context” of how words are used by humanity.

My conclusion here is not to suggest that “Truth” as conceived by a contemporary world view is therefore somehow “True” as in “Real”. But that the meaning of the word “True” comes from how we as a greater community use the word. When someone says “God is dead” he doesn’t mean that “I think God is dead” and what is true is only that he thinks God is dead. No. He means to assert that statement as “True” absolutely in reality. It may in fact be false and every such assertion may be false but he still asserts it to be “True” as in really true. But what we see is that “really” true in the sense in which we use this word is redundant.

galatomic
galatomic
 


Re: Word Meaning is Determined by Use

Postby rrushius on October 8th, 2006, 12:46 am 

galatomic wrote:I do get your point rrushius but only because you have this knack or skill to dislodge the single mindedness of the voice of our engagement. When I read you carefully it calms my usual urge to be defensive about what I feel are important, almost vital, issues that must be resolved between us in order to make any philosophical progress.


Thank you Galatomic & Iammyaspectofus. I hope you understand to a more deeper level what I am saying. But although my own conclusions are direct implications of what I have said and some of them can be deduced from these posts, I sometimes forget that as different people we are bound to see things differently and thus you may very well arrive at different conclusions by making use of my own words. I think I owe you a further explanation, which may in fact take me a while to elaborate. My opinion that truth is something in between relative and absolute, although seemingly two concepts that cannot be coupled stands on the middle ground, the borderline, I shall say, of language and the ineffable. The concept of edgework, -- as so insightfully described by my professor, Dragan Milovanovic, in his essay: "Edgework; A Subjective and Structural Model of Negotiating Boundaries," which was incorporated in Stephen Lyng's book; "Edgework; The Sociology of Risk Taking," a collection of essays from different fields such as arts, sociology, psychology, ethnography, law/jurisprudence, criminology etc. some of the other authors, David Courtney, Jeff Ferrell, Mark S. Hamm, Jonathan Simon, Gideon Sjoberg, Anna Zajicek etc, all focusing on risk taking activities -- is a great example of such a borderline. I will get some more concepts across soon.
rrushius
 


Re: rrushius

Postby Sames on November 1st, 2006, 2:15 pm 

hi rrushius,
enjoyed your post very much. One thing though: although i'm no expert when it comes to the Bible, i think it was actually Pilate that would not stay for an answer. How unfortunate for us! Assuming, that is, that Jesus would not have simply answered 'i am truth' - which, i think, he would have.
Sames
 


Postby rrushius on November 1st, 2006, 2:52 pm 

Welcome Sames. I was just about to ask you what did you mean by it but I see that you edited it already.
rrushius
 


Postby graemhoek on November 29th, 2006, 9:29 am 

If truth falls in the woods and no one is there to lie about it... does it make a sound?
graemhoek
 


Postby Fuqin on November 30th, 2006, 8:34 am 

i went with (truth is relative) Since that is the truth that is relative to me I don’t Know of any absolute truth except in the claims of others and all I can perceive of them is absolute truths are absolute lies.
User avatar
Fuqin
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3061
Joined: 29 May 2005
Location: The land of OZ
Blog: View Blog (2)



Return to Metaphysics & Epistemology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests