Karma, much of what you said is true, but is beside the point. You have raised an esthetic argument and confused it with truth. Anyone who knows me will tell you that if nothing else, I am a person of deep esthetic sensitivities and passions. But I do not mistake those sensitivities for truth. Let me put it to you this way: I am convinced that Beethoven was the greatest musical genius to have ever walked the face of the earth. Do I now damn to hell those who prefer Eric Clapton? Do I even enter into that kind of debate?
Yet that is precisely the kind of thing that some religionists do when they wrap their subjective view of morality within the confines of a holy book, proclaiming it as universal and absolute, and then try to impose it on the rest of the world, insisting that it is not open to dissection.
Confusing the concepts of truth and esthetics is a semantic game. They are quite different. An idea may appeal to you on a number of planes, including the way it is phrased. But that does not make the idea true. Sound, poetry, music, etc. may appeal to you esthetically, but that, too, does not make them 'true'. Constructing truth in that kind of context is a logical straw man, and if you accept that kind of blurred meaning you run the risk of fooling yourself.
Intuition has little to do with the concept of truth. I think it is a way that we shortcut a conscious logical approach to things, but intuitive answers are no more immune to intellectual probing than those resulting from active thought.
TTFN,
CTC |
