Truth...what is it?...is there such a thing?

Do you believe in a concept of Absolute Truth - i.e. a fact which is immutable?

Am dubious of the proveability of any truth, much less that which is Absolute. What Stacey said was accurate (nearly said true)- truth is subjective, and it is reasonable for enlightened people to respect the veracity of other people's truths, and perhaps even agree with some. This hardly, though, bespeaks the existence, or even the possibility, of Universal or Absolute Truth. It does bespeak good manners, however...

I believe in truth, however, only as I can see it. Universal truth would be difficult and contrary to some people who may not agree just for the sake of not agreeing.

Which, could it not, be taken as a Universal Truth?

I claim that there is Truth, but that kind of Truth must admit of contradictary statements (i.e., paradox) in order to embrace that which IS. "A is A" or "Dogs are dogs" are absolute truths, but they don't say much. People who read the Bible believe that it speaks of a rich absolute truth, but be aware that the Bible has to speak in paradoxes, contradictions, and parables in order to get at, or suggest, certain truths that cannot be expressed in ordinary, simple, direct statements. The absolute truth, whatever that is, is not always easy to put our hands around.

I believe there are absolute truths, but man is limited in his/her ability to undersand. Take for example the basic laws of thermodynamic, where you can follow it's evolution. Science admits these laws are often refinded based upon our undersanding, but this doesn't mean there isn't some pure law that is a universal truth.

Yes, the limits of our understanding may also set limits on what truths we can grasp. These little limited body/minds of ours are constantly pushing toward the limits of the known. Humans are amazing! I believe it was the Greek sophist, Protagerus (sp?) who said that, "Man is the measure of all things, both of what is and what is not."

Whether there exists an Absolute Truth... I can think of only one and that is that truth is what it is and what it is not based on each individual. I believe that the only way to find the absolute truth is to find your own unique way. "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Mantainence" seemed to request an answer to that same question, or at least to ask the question. I think I ended up creating a chart posturing Reason against (and then with) Love. IN my mind, the entire setup begged the question, Is there Absolute Truth or Absolute Love?

Must these be exclusive (Absolute Truth and Love, I mean)?

You have to read the book... I don't believe so, in fact, I believe they are inextricably connected and feel like my best decisions are made when I've thoughtfully assimilated the two.

Truth, Love, Beauty -- perhaps these are all the same in the end. But our body/mind/spirits interpret them through differing filtering systems so as to deal with different "aspects" of reality or life. Love seems warm, however. Truth seems cold. Interesting....

Can see that. Must believe, though, that being as it is a creature of passion, Love is intrinsically removed (to it's everlasting benefit and credit) from the somewhat sterile intellectual considerations of human beings. Love is the only thing larger than ourselves that we can definitively know (though we can never prove it, nor understand it- like Yeats said,"Love is the crooked thing/ and there's no one wise enough to know all that is in it."), and probably the only ennobling aspect of our existence. And unproveable nd intellectually unknowable as it may be, is it not the most profoundly genuine thing we are capable of?

Yes, love is the greatest aspect of human life. From love we came and to love we go. In between we play many games afraid of what love will do to us which may be nothing less than the elimination of the ego or sense of self-separation which some call "fear".

Don't believe we're so much afraid of love as we are of it's fragility, and what we perceive to be it's transience... And isn't elimination of ego and self-separation more commonly referred to as death?

Yes, death. But I think that there are many kinds of death. Everyday, we die in various ways, as we surrender stuff or viewpoints that are not real. Sometimes this is painful; sometimes this is joyful. If we tend toward enlightenment, we may even discover times of blissful acceptance of the reality that is greater than the small self. So it seems when I can get clear about it all. Not always felt that way, however.

Guess it is reduced, finally, to personal value judgements- and integrating them with our realities (no mean feat). One man's enlightenment, after all, is another's darkness. The realities greater than ourselves are love and death, and the meaning of each is nebulous (in the larger sense, I mean- our individual relationship with each is pretty much rife with specificity), and subject to endless interpretation. To accept our "smallness" (if that's what you're referring to as the beginning of enlightenment) is an idea intellectually sound, yet I must wonder how practiceable it is, for many- sort of counter to the nature of those whom Wolfe referred to as "man-alive"- that aspect of human beings (derived, perhaps from spiritual intellect) which simply cannot/will-not sink gladly into the night...

But how can expect to love in a world where love is defined by having one's suffering relieved by the one who causes us to suffer?

What you say is quite (poignantly) true- but consider the alternative, and ask yourself how one could manage to live even in such a world managing NOT to love. Would think one would better not live; to be "looped in the loops of her hair"- even briefly- justifies the suffering, doesn't it?

Even when they are braided into a noose?

Sorry, looks like a missed a tag!

"Love makes the world go 'round." "Love is the heartbeat of the universe." La Trveatta (sp?) Anyway. Love is one of the ultimate subjects of philsophy. I go opening yet another topic ... on love!

KitchenManager, what in the hell did "she" do to you? I'm not acquainted with that kind of love- if I were, perhaps it would change my perspective, a bit... Have been genuinely in love once- and she died, long ago- but would not trade the experience, despite the loss, despite the pain, for anything. It is my personal truth, the only one I know...

...you are blessed with such a deep love...

No one in particular, Nick, more of a collective "what if?"

Glad to hear that...Can tell that you're a decent, sincere guy, and know- from clinical observation, mind you- that sincere people can be easily hurt...But most guys I know that fall into that category (yes, a few actually are willing to be seen talking to me) get hurt only because they invest themselves in the wrong people, then persuade themselves that women, in general, don't value those qualities, and by extension won't value them...Not true, of course, because I know lots of women who value those qua ities above all else (of course, they're not willing to be seen talking to me), and have a really hard time finding men that possess them (this "graceless age", per Don Henley, doesn't exactly cultivate decency or sincerity, does it?)...To corrupt Robert Burns, you may have to trade thorns with many a "fause luver" to find your rose- but what else can "signify the life o' man"?

Sorry nick, got distracted... are you a Don Henley fan?

Yeah, sure...he's a great Texan (and Irish, I suspect)...

Ahhh... I am so accustomed to having people slam my affection for his lyrics. This is a welcome change!

Never understood that...With the Eagles some critics used to whine that his writing was "misogynistic", and specifically sexist, which only goes to show how narrow and literal some pc types can be...And as much as I like his Eagles stuff, he's shown amazing growth since...Don't know I've ever heard a more beautiful song than "Heart of the Matter"...

used to make me cry... Great taste in music, nick!

You know, we've corrupted poor Americ's topic beyond repair, I'm afraid...has he thrown up his hands?

That's the TRUTH! *on topic* *on topic*

Truth...is found in rock'n'roll, Jazz and all kinds of music. I appreciate the diversions. Makes this place much more interesting. ;)

Interesting point...rock and roll and poetry are one, really, to me...variations of the same thing, expressions of complicated truths, made simple by the kind of inexplicable dynamism achieved from combining words and meters, rhymes and rhythms- the sum always being far greater than the parts...It's as if it's achieved via some language each of us understands only at an instinctive level (though it's foreign to some music critics, and nearly everyone in Nashville)...

What are some of your favorite rock lyrics?

Personal truths anyway.

Yes, personal truths... My favorite song has always been Springsteen's "Thunder Road" (esp. the "Live" version, recorded at the Roxy, in '75 or '76, with Bruce on piano)...The lyrics are as good as I've heard, and they are complemented by one of the most wistful, longing pieces of music I've experienced...the musical refrain is simply hypnotic...

I always felt that way about BS's "Jungleland"--and that's the truth!

Yeah, that's a great song...Love that flourish, at the end..."Man, the poets out here don't write nothin' at all/ they just stand back, and let it all be/ then- in the quick of the night/ they reach for their moment, and try to make an honest stand.../ And the wind up wounded, not even dead/ Tonight...in..." and then it just explodes on the word "jungleland"...Out-Spectored Spector...

I think that truth is what you learn about yourself. Then to be let go of... because finding the truth has changed you, and it no longer applies. In each moment, we are something, and some truth describes us. Once we discover it, we can let go and proceed to the next adventure. Only one truth for each moment. I think Wisdom is the collective intent to gather truths that apply to everyone and everything.. thereby giving us comfort and security. But it will never happen because we all are different. And that is why there is truth for each of us, but not wisdom for all of us. I say; "Be bold and through the damn word out! We don't need it anymore! Pull the anchor and set the mainsail! Let's have a big party and everybody can just explode!

actually, didn't Iggy say that?

Truth, in my opinion, is merely a psychological manifestation. It is nothing more than what our subconcious thinks we can handle. If there is a "truth" out there, (pardon the use of a copyrighted phrase) it can only be classified as a piece of our psyche.

A statement is true to the extent that it maps something out there some kind of correspondance must exist between a statement and reality

some kind of correspondance must exist between a statement and reality Yep, I think it exists in the eyes of the beholder... and anyone else that can be coerced to believe it.

Well put. And, if my statement is: "an eclipse of the sun is going to happen at 9:00 a.m." and we happen to both see the eclipse would you still think that is i would be "coercing" you into believing that state. i mean: that the event of the eclipse itself is enough evidence of truth.

"All I saw was a dark cloud passing in front of the sun." HEY BUDDY... are you trying to coerce me! Har har. We seem to be at that place wherein belief systems have common areas... and not so common areas. We see the same things (though may explain them differently). This is where (common education) comes in and creates common reasons for the same perceptions. Without it, we might all have our different points of view in those areas we now take for granted. In that way, I do believe we create our own realities. If we all had the same point of view... what would be the point. In fact, what is the point in two people having the same viewpoint. No fun there. Just a grab for validation or comfort in numbers?

We already have a "common point of view" by speaking the same language, English.

within these "common" points of view we are able to communicate enough so as to be able to have differences.

Yes, a common language creates the platform for agreement or disagreement. And while it does not limit magnitude, it does limit content. But that goes nowhere in my mind?

Let me try it a different way; A ficticious society that supports nonconformity of ideas, reaps the benefits of; enjoying 'change' and greater forward motion. My point being.. A group of researchers all pursuing different avenues of thought (without right/wrong endings) is better than not.

"A group of researchers all pursuing different avenues of thought (without right/wrong endings) is better than not. Please say more.

A fundamental paradigm of society is; Who has the power. Money... Looks... Intellect... Truth... etc, etc, etc. These things get; Respect, Adoration, Notoriety and Worship and Love. Each of these facets requires the agreement of other/s that a particular person does indeed have these qualities, the more people agree, the more power involved. This overall theme of power can create bias in 'Thinkers, Researches etc. In other words, their thinking must result in conclusions that others will agree with (right/wrong). This can limit the directions that one might pursue. There are of course the radical types who could care less?

When there is always some pursuit of power involved, it might keep you from getting out of a self imposed box.. And instead of having or not having the power, maybe you will just 'be the power'? The Child.

Truth is a very personal thing. For me it is free-will in thinking as well as in acting, judged only by itself, and not by others. Just that.

but humans live in societies. what about when a group of us has to decide on what truth is? btw, welcome to the spring!!!!!

Greetings, SKAT! and are we talking about subjective or objective truth? or truth in generalities, or is specifics?

In the old eastern block a professor once claimed that there is only one truth, and that is the communist truth, Ray. He went on to say, 'Who lives in Truth has freedom.' Would you therefore agree that the truth that THAT body of people agreed upon, is truly Truth? Wer, is there a difference? Please specify . . .

no, not at all. but i think there is a difference between a true truth and a truth sought after by a particular group of people. the major difference (or one difference anyway) between them is that i do not think it is possible to prove the existance of true truth. the best we can do is say that truth is self-evident (and that is actually ok with me), Plato notwithstanding. proving the existence of a communal truth amongst a group of people is something we do everyday. it's when one groups truth runs up against anothers that we get problems, hence we need ethics.

objective would be "true truths" or "universal truths"... subjective would be "personal truths," those based on individual experiences... general truths have many easily accepted exceptions... specific truths have lost that capability due to their specificity...

Ray, there you proved my point! Truth IS self-evident, I totally agree - that is exactly what I said. There is no TRUE TRUTH, because TRUE TRUTH is universal (thanks, WER!), and would therefore have to be decided upon by a group of people, perhaps like ourselves; and the Truth is judged by itself, and not by others! Truth is simply Truth. Being truthful with oneself is all that matters. I do agree that a communal Truth exists amongst people - that is because we all basically know what Truth is, and how to practise is. It is not the difficulty and labour in finding the truth that bring lies in favour, but our natural, corrupt love of the lie itself. Wer, is it not obvious that general truths and specific truths involve no labour whatsoever (I mean, trees simply are tall, and houses made of brick - how difficult can THAT be to cope with?! Ha-HA!)? Therefore it mush be personal truths that we are discussing here, or what? Don't you agree that if vain opinions, self-flattery, false evaluations, false imaginings etc. were taken out of our minds, it would leave a number of people poor and shrunken, full of melancholy and indisposition, and altogether unpleasing to themselves? That is why it is so important to be truthful with oneself before being truthful to others. After all, the light of day does not show our triumphs half as grandly, half as daintily as the dim light of a candle.

*** Being truthful with oneself is all that matters *** i kind of agree with this, and kind of don't. nowadays, this statement is true, i think, because of the fact that we have so many different philosophies around. we live in a time when there appears to be no universal truths, and so each of us adopts some sort of philosophical position to live by, and chances are the philosophical position one adopts is diametrically opposed to someone elses. in a world such as this, there can be no discussion as to what the truth is. the only thing we can do is to identify what philosophical postion someone claims to have taken, then to call them hypocrites if they fail to live up to that philosophical position. Thus, it seems that being truthful with oneself is indeed the only real philosophy of life left today. unfortunately, this leaves name-calling as the only real philosophical "debates" we have any more.

Ray, you've said it! Very well put. That is just how I feel. But I seem to detect a difference - the way you say it, is as if you think it a shame. Right or wrong? I think one can continue the philosophical debate about Truth quite a bit further. I mean, you can argue that this 'modern' Truth is bad, I argue that it is good. But first I have to make sure of your opinion. Enlighten me! I like talking to you.

i do feel that the state of affairs we have right now is, well, sad i guess. it is difficult for me to get into a moral debate because so much of my own moral ideas are derived from my strong beliefs as a Catholic, and you can only argue that stuff so far. but i do feel that we westerners are in a moral dilemma. if you trace back the history of western thought on morality, it turns out that the "oughts" that make up our rules of right and wrong can all be traced back to Aristotle. Aristotles morality was in many ways very straightforward: there were things that you did if you were a good person, and if you didnt do those things, you were bad. I am of course simplifying a great deal, but the point is that Aristotle's ethics were more or less self-evident, and not based on some long series of rationalizations. such a system served well until the enlightenment. at that time, the power of human rationality was glorified, and men started questioning and rationalizing everything, including ethics. Aristotle's ethics made no rational sense, and so new moral ideas began to spring forth. for example, Kant appealed to rationality as the basis of our ethics, while Hume appealed to sentiment. what we're left with is a bunch of ethical camps which all attempt to rationalize the oughts left to us by Aristotle. people take up position around a camp, but cannot engage in rational discourse with other members of other camps due to the fact that there are no commonalities between camps. as a result, modern debates on ethics are characterized by emotivism and name-calling. the only solutions to all of this mess is to go back to Aristotle's ethics, which of course in todays world would look like just another bunch of crap. anyway, that's my 2 cents, and why i think Aristotle be da man when it comes to ethics. these are not my original ideas. most come from the work of a philosopher named Alisdair McIntyre. he has published many books, one of best of which is _Beyond_Virtue_.

In response to: "There is no TRUE TRUTH, because TRUE TRUTH is universal (thanks, WER!), and would therefore have to be decided upon by a group of people, perhaps like ourselves" If somrething is a 'universal truth' must people be the ones to decide on what makes it so? Riette, you speak of trees being tall and that being considered a 'truth' when doesn't it all go back to perspective? We share this universe with many other creatures/beings/entities and perhaps to a bird the tree is indeed NOT tall. Are truths only pertinent to mankind? Could we not be confusing human interperted 'facts' as 'truth' simply because we are an extremely egocentric composition of living matter? And then what is 'fact' to you, may not be 'fact' to me. It seems to me, if we do not allow subjective truth and consider it valid... In essence are we making perspective a form of denial and living our own personal lies?

Someone else in another topic brought forth a very similar sort of argument, concerning Relativism. I find it an illogical argument used to obliterate TRUTH. Is truth not indeed also perspective?!?! Of course it is! Perspective is very important, otherwise we would not be able to distinguish truth from falsehood, right from wrong - tall from small! I dare say even elephants and birds and sheep perceive of trees as being tall. (The giraffe I'm not so sure about. Ha-HA!) Anyway, I don't think one can bring animals into the discussion, because there are no philosophiers amongst them to convey to us their point of view. We happen to be the only rational, sense- and nonsense talking creatures on earth, and, egocentric as our truths may be - it is important. I am sure many of my facts are not yours and vice versa. But one of my 'facts' is to live and let live, and so it should not be a problem. I don't quite understand your argument about making perspective a form of denial and living our own personal lies. Only if one is dishonest with oneself will one make perspective a form of denial - and I dare say we know exactly WHEN we are being dishonest with ourselves, and so perspective does not become a form of denial, but a form of self-deceit, quite a conscious thing. I truth in society can only be achieved through subjective truth, truthfulness with oneself. If we don't lie to ourselves, we will not lie to others, and if we do not lie to others, they will trust us.

yes, you did miss my point about perspective/denial. I was simply asking whether or not, as the devil's advocate of course, if we claim 'certain truths to be self-evident' are we not claiming those who see things differently are then living a lie by refusing to subscribe to our 'truth' (opinion)?

i don't know about "living a lie," but those who see things differently would probably be characterized as immoral, and vice versa.

NO, NO, NO!!! People who 'live their lies' are people who HURT others by it, who live by an evil truth - and THAT is self-evident. For instance, should we suddenly start tolerating the lives that rapists or murderers lead by saying they are merely living a life by their own unique self-truth?!?! THAT is when perspective becomes a lie. Those who merely live what other's would deem 'immoral' lives will not care, for their truth will be judged by itself, as I have pointed out before - people may question their decisions, their truths, but they will not be hurt by it. That is where the difference lies.

so now truth has a moral twist... but these morals are evidently 'universal'? seems to me, you've got your own organized religion right here!

It has nothing to do with religion. Do truth and morals not belong together like man and wife? Without truth morality would not exist, and without morality there would have been no need for truth. As far as universal morals are concerned: like truth some morals are universal and some not. Our responsibility is not only to ourselves, but to others just as much - but morals and truth begins within oneself. Is that so twisted a thought?

It has nothing to do with religion. Do truth and morals not belong together like man and wife? Without truth morality would not exist, and without morality there would have been no need for truth. As far as universal morals are concerned: like truth some morals are universal and some not. Our responsibility is not only to ourselves, but to others just as much - but morals and truth begin within oneself. Is that so twisted a thought?

I don't know that they belong together all the time. Morals are lessons, to be moral is to be good and just. Morality implies a vague goodness. I do not believe THE TRUTH always must be good, virtuous, right... I simply believe it must be accurate, honest, factual. Big differences IMHO..

No, not really - I don'f feel all THAT much different than you, but you must give me a more concrete example of what you mean when you talk about a 'bad' kind of truth. Is it not the kind of truth that inflicts pain? I think the truth inflicts a great deal of pain anyway, and that is why it is so hard to see it as a virtuous, moral thing. Sometimes it would be a great deal easier to lie, and save other people from hurt. But it would not be accurate, honest or factual, as you put it so well, and therefore it would be a false kind of morality. That is why we value the truth at about, say, the price of a pearl - it only shines in bright daylight - and the lie at that of a diamond which shines beautifully in every kind of light.

Riette, what if the truth is we are all a bunch of multi-celled organisms putting meaning into an existence which has no higher meaning beyond what we give it. Is that goodness? Moral? No, it has absolutely nothing to do with it. What about hunting let's say. Without killing off animals (because we've already killed off their predators) they would starve to death. So (in a completely random sense, the truth is (it is accurate to say, we need to shoot animals for them to survive) this might be the truth, but is it moral, good? See how people's opinions get all caught up in both issues and truth and morality really don't always go hand in hand?

Hmm . . . Yeah, I see what you mean. Difficult subject, istn't it? But I somehow can't think of the human race merely as a bunch of multi-celled organisms; I don't think we would have been 'putting' meaning into our existence, and striving for good (or evil) if we were just that. I do understand what you mean when I read your example though. It is funny that you should have chosen hunting, because it is something I have been confronted with alot in my life, since I grew up on a farm in Africa. My grandfather used to have to hunt certain types of antelope from time to time, not so much for the meat, but for just the reason that you have given, namely that there were not enough predators - lions and leopards - to keep their numbers under control. He hated hunting, and was indeed very bad hunter, but it had to be done. Then I have seen the sort of people who hunt the predators. There is no reason behind it, except that it is their life's dream to shoot a lion, and make a rug from the skin. They have no respect for their prey either. Sick, isn't it. So I have to ask: has hunting not more to do with instinct then? For the second kind of hunter has more of the predator's instinct than the first. And with instinct there exists no morals, that I am sure of. Otherwise there would be no murderers.

are you saying murder is instinctual?!?!?!

Yes. I don't so much believe that killers are merely people with bad childhoods. If that were the case, a hell of a lot more people would have been murderers.

*boggled mind* hold on, lemme digest that one for a bit.

ha-ha! Boggled? That's good. Thought you might be disgusted!

no just trying to assimilate you idea with the fact that I believe in choice and also in instinct. So... if murder is instinctual, I can certainly work that out. But... I am trying to think of what instinct would possess that and, if we are all part of the asme species, why we don't all share the same drive (like the instinct to procreate (or at least practice!)). But, you see, in the same manner that mankind can choose to ignore the instinct to procreate, are some of us not , in reality, merely ignoring he drive to murder? I don't know. I just cannot see a purpose in it all. Most instinctual behaviors are designed to further the survival of the species. Murder doesn't AND, unless you wanted to make some strange case for murder being population control or an explanation of Darwinian evolution, it just doesn't jive. Riette, please explain more why you think murder is an instinct for some. And whether or not you believe it is a species wide and something that is controllable. *exasperated from having thought too hard this morning*

Oh dear, it is very difficult for me to explain why I think murder must have something to do with instinct, and I probably risk making an enemy of you. But I'll try, and I hope it won't come out too twisted. Well, we all get born with instincts, that you will agree with. I think how these instincts will develop depends not only on our surroundings, but also on our personalities. See, I can't believe that you have your personality just because you were brought up in a certain way, or I mine. I was brought up to be very different from what I am now, and yet I am what I am, and you are what you are. It's just there. And it decides what to do with the instincts that are there already. Have you ever watched a small baby, or been with one for a length of time? It's where I started to form this idea. A baby is just this little bundle of instinct, and for the first few weeks after giving birth, the mother is like that too. I never knew how strong instincts could be until I had my babies. I remember exactly how they smelled (and they each had a very distinct smell), waking up just before they started screaming, with the overwhelming urge to feed them. Or having nightmares about someth ng happening to them, dashing to where they were sleeping in their beds, and finding they had kicked their blankets off, and were lying cold and shivering in the corner of the cot. And the physical relief it gave me to take them into bed with me, and hold them very tight. It was really weird, but it got me thinking. I thought about how, in a way I was really not much more than an animal - about how I had never thought of myself as so 'primitive' in a way. And the more I thought about it, the more I thought that perhaps instinct forms a far greater part of us than we think. But we cover them up cleverly with our civilized ways. Yet they're still there. Take an easy example like sex. When you feel the urge you don't think: I am having this feeling, because it plays an important part in nature, because I want to r produce. No, all you can think about is that you want to have sex right here, right now, and bugger the rest (so to speak!) What if it's the same with people who kill or torture others? I've read numerous interviews where they said they did it because they just 'had to', because they had 'the urge'. They didn't think about the rest of the species at that moment, or about the pain they would inflict - just that they had to do it here, right now. So perhaps killing is a kind of instinct that becomes very dangerous when coupled with anger and hatred. I think we all commit murder some time during our lifetime - even if it is nly in our heads. I can think of a particular one that I commited once, and, yes, it did give me a kind of satisfaction, because I was angry, and hated the person. And I don't think it takes all that much for this kind of instinct to just get totally out of hand. It is there in all of us, like in all other animals - but because we do possess faculties higher than that of animals, we must try and overcome the kind of instincts that can inflict pain on others. We must be aware of the savageness of our h man nature in order to strive for kindness and care.

Ooh, I like the way you put that, Riette!

Lurking again?! You liked it?!?!?! Stacey's going to kill me for that response!

Actually, I really enjoyed the last sentence especially and I agree with it wholeheartedly. I suppose I am still struggling with the nature/nurture side of a murderer. I keep going off on tangents like... gang initiation killings -- not instinctual hate crimes -- not insticntual murder suicide (crime of passion) -- not instinctual serial killer -- hmmmm? rapist/murderer -- pent up anger from earlier abuse or hmmm?? I don't know but I certainly can see you point more clearly. Perhaps there are those humans who are overwhelmed by savage impulses, instinctual impulses, if you will. But then the question is... do the rest of us merely subdue those intincts, have they evolved out, is there a trigger???

I am sure . . . or no, one can't ever be SURE of something . . . I think, that the rest of us do merely subdue those instincts, and that they are a long, long way from evolving. That is where environment comes in, I think. If we experience the love and care of others we are able to subdue, almost forget those instincts. Even then there are still situations that occure where you think of someone: 'May the fleas from a thousand camels infest that bitch's armpits.' Sure it's nothing serious, but I think it is a kind of savage anger flaring up. If you live in an environment where these instincts are constantly being provoked and tested, and pushed to the limit, then I think the chances are that at some point instinct might override sense. More killers come from environments just like that than those who don't - in which case the person was evil to start with, and not made so. That is probably another controversial point - whether people are born evil, or made so. Personally I think both.

I don't think that anybody is born evil. But, people are born contrary, and with the wrong direction, a contrary person becomes evil far easier than someone else. Even a basically good person can be pushed to evil.

Do you ever have moments where you fear you might be evil? I sometimes do. It scares me.

I did, when I was in the army. When the time came to do my taxes, under occupation, I put hired killer. They refused to accept it that way. made me change it. I put down priest, the second time and that worked. Under my training, I was expected to kill whoever I was told to, Even our own people. That is what got me to wondering....

I can't imagine you killing anybody. What horrible training was this?

I was trained in physical security as an MP and also trained as a sniper. I never had to kill in the army, but the mentality was there. That is why I went into EMS for several years. sort of a mental cleaning process. Correct that to I never had to kill a human in the army. I did kill a dog.

If you're a trained sniper, then we'll defenitely have to go to a fun fair as well. Then we could do the target shooting thing, and I'll have loads of cuddly toys to bring home for my girls! You killed a dog? You mean you reversed into it?

I should be very upset if you did that when we go to Mexico in your truck!

I blew up the truck the dog was riding in. I was on guard duty and the driver of the truck was tring to crash through the gate into a small arms repair facility, I opened fire and lit up the truck. The man dove out and took off running. The dog blew up with the truck.

The dog's name was Ralph. The truck's name was Harold. Ralph didn't want to be with Harold that day, and all day he knew he was going to be. It wasn't fate. Because fate wasn't there that day. It was outta town, visiting its soulmate who was wandering around the Mayan pyramids, looking for trash....white trash....and she or he or it kept bumping into all these enfeebled tourists.

ha-ha!! Just shows you - never hang out with trucks unless you like 'em!

Poor Ralph...

I've got to agree with that sentiment. Stupid handler got 5 years in Leavenworth