Quotes

The nature of truth like science is unchangeable. A discussion or an argument would not change or affect the subjects of our discussion, but it would do so though to our relationship with them. Mirrors, could reflect subjects concavely or convexly or other ways but they are unable to mold the objects to their own versions of interpretations.

"Do not let them to define you by your gender, because then they shackle you with that."
Ariafashin

"Save me, O Lord, from your believers."

The wisest man, said the Delphic oracle, was Socrates. He insisted that if he were truly wise, it was because he realized that he knew nothing.

The Truth as Plato envisioned it may be immutable, but our poor understanding of it can only approach yet never reflect that truth. The Socratic method of argument is the attempt to discover it.

"I'm wise because I've been foolish"

It is the figure of speech sort of thing. I always notice there are, even in academic level, confusion about the "truth" as concrete objects out there, reflecting on us through our senses and the "truth" as a concrete object itself.
We sense, then later on, through the aid of others or objects such as tools, we certify the accuracy of those senses and format them in some formulas that practically coordinate with all the aspects of our corresponding sensory data, of that subject. Those formulas change when our scope changes, but they still remain definite in there own realms: like the law of gravity, the Newton physic or then in bigger scope the "relativity" theory. The "relativity" defies the general aspects and certainty in the simple physic, but it could never conflict with their definite rules in their specific dominion.
In the other hand is the truth as the essence, in which existentialism, for example tends to deny: like universal human qualities, things with general values, such as god and meaning or existence, existing on their own.
Existentialism in opposite puts emphasis on the uniqueness of individual experiences. As Camus says :
" there is always at best an imperfect fit between human reasoning and its intended objects."

@allabout's us, I like your first answer to Larry' quote's, but then both Larry's response and your counter response delving into the controversial imperfect world of existensialism raise more questions than answers, I think it will be a good idea to debate Larry's quote, in the Let's debate thread #2, so I will transfer the quote over there to open up a litle hot debate on this one. Feel free to transfer your current arguments over there to maintain a continuity.

Thats why I prefer the pre-socratics/sophists.

The sophists were also the first to ask What is true/Truth/Aletheia ? coming to the conclusion that there is, in fact, no truth.

Sophists however were using the power of logic to manipulate the truth to their advantage. (sophisticating things)
They would turn everything to whatever was more convenient for them to believe, so much like what governments do nowadays.

I prefer the Pre-socratics. The Sophists were in general intellectual descendants of the Presocratic philosophers.I dont like their skepticism at all and the consequecences: empirism,relativism and phenomenalism.

What the Sphists did was to play with relativity of truth.Their belief was that truth is relative to the individual.Were they wrong?I don't think so for they fomented an intellectual revolution.

As I mentioned in the other link, in my opinion any extreme shift of assertion would result in losing the balance.
Sophists were wrong because deception was there only aim instead of understanding.
They could not care about the truth at all, so they complicated each idea to draw their own conclusions: sophistication instead of simplicity, darkness instead of light, taint in place of clarification.

SMA Chandler said in a recent speech to soldiers stationed in Europe. "A good leader is not one who can only issue orders, but one who can also work with his men, who leads by example, not by word, who dose whats right even when no one is looking. A good leader is a man that you can trust and who can tell when something is not right about his soldier. He knows his soldiers, and at all times places their needs above his own. He fallows the creed of the non-comissioned officer to the T. He makes mistakes and takes critizism with a grain of salt. Knowing what a good leader is, I must ask you, from the lowest pvt to the highest CSM. Are YOU a good leader?"