Process Or Result?

ill said:
you don't agree that there is a process to justice?

it obviously isn't the same process as a scientific one, but there is still a process.
Click to expand...
Justice is a process not a result.
 
Kburjr said:
I see justice like truth. It is an absolute.
Click to expand...
I don't think I agree with that...

while there is human error in both science and "justice", often mistakes are made when it comes to judgement.
 
ill said:
I don't think I agree with that...

while there is human error in both science and "justice", often mistakes are made when it comes to judgement.
Click to expand...

That's the reason why it is an absolute. Human error is the reason for not obtaining the absolute truth or absolute justice.
 
jjc2009 said:
Well there’s this guy. Fancies himself as one

Click to expand...


Kburjr said:
I see justice like truth. It is an absolute.
Click to expand...
Well I disagree. Something is true, until it is not. There is always something that can change that narrative. What is true is a perception. For instance. Knowledge is always changing. So what was perceived to be true one day, may change in another.

Outside of the fact of as soon as we are born we are dying. (another words, we will all die) There is no real absolutes out there.
 
jjc2009 said:
Justice is a process not a result.
Click to expand...
Judicially, it can be argued as a result.
Law dictates justice as a result.
Going to court is the pursuit of justice. (process)
Final verdict is the justice which is the result.

One might say....
 
Schmoopy1000 said:
Something is true, until it is not.
Click to expand...
Agree with this. Science is settled, until it isn’t. That day may never come but you don’t stop questioning and testing it.

The science was settled that the sun revolves around the earth, until it wasn’t. Imagine if they screamed “science denier” at Copernicus and shut down any questioning or debate.
 
Schmoopy1000 said:
Well I disagree. Something is true, until it is not. There is always something that can change that narrative. What is true is a perception. For instance. Knowledge is always changing. So what was perceived to be true one day, may change in another.

Outside of the fact of as soon as we are born we are dying. (another words, we will all die) There is no real absolutes out there.
Click to expand...

I have always bought into Plato's Ideals. There is Absolute Truth and Absolute Justice. We can catch a glimmer but never attain. The flaw(?) In reality.
 
Schmoopy1000 said:
Well I disagree. Something is true, until it is not. There is always something that can change that narrative. What is true is a perception. For instance. Knowledge is always changing. So what was perceived to be true one day, may change in another.

Outside of the fact of as soon as we are born we are dying. (another words, we will all die) There is no real absolutes out there.
Click to expand...
I disagree with your approach to truth. IMHO the narrative has nothing to do with the truth. Narrative implies a story/perspective. The truth is the truth no matter what narrative is prevalent. The truth by definition does not change while perspectives always do. The truth did not change when we proved/accepted the earth revolves around the sun.
 
batchaps4me said:
I disagree with your approach to truth. IMHO the narrative has nothing to do with the truth. Narrative implies a story/perspective. The truth is the truth no matter what narrative is prevalent. The truth by definition does not change while perspectives always do. The truth did not change when we proved/accepted the earth revolves around the sun.
Click to expand...
I get what you are saying here. So there must be a better way to say what I was attempting to say.
What we perceive as truth today, may change tomorrow as our knowledge changes tomorrow.
Since none of us know everything there is about everything. We can never claim "absolute" truth. Which is what I am disagreeing with. Absolute truth can only be perceived. (how would we know otherwise)
What you stated here I would have to find as completely correct!
 
Schmoopy1000 said:
We can never claim "absolute" truth. Which is what I am disagreeing with. Absolute truth can only be perceived. (how would we know otherwise)
Click to expand...
I agree with you. IMHO we can find absolute truths but that does not mean we will recognize it as that. We will also discover that many of the absolute truths we "knew" are incorrect. As long as we can question and reason, we should never be totally sure of anything.
 
Schmoopy1000 said:
I get what you are saying here. So there must be a better way to say what I was attempting to say.
What we perceive as truth today, may change tomorrow as our knowledge changes tomorrow.
Since none of us know everything there is about everything. We can never claim "absolute" truth. Which is what I am disagreeing with. Absolute truth can only be perceived. (how would we know otherwise)
What you stated here I would have to find as completely correct!
Click to expand...
We can claim an absolute truth exists, but we can not claim that we know it.
 
Kburjr said:
We can claim an absolute truth exists, but we can not claim that we know it.
Click to expand...
but doesnt that kinda counter "absolute"
Kinda like Sayin' Absolute......... I think
 
As an atheist, this has always created some discordance with my thinking. Anselm' Argument for the existence of God is a direct descendant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top