What is true and what is not.
So we come about a fact. or a "truth"
and how do we know that, wat is true to us is the truth?
say if we adopt a reductionist way of thinking.
We break it down, taking a *truth* and relating to the very truth* that is it based upon.
and so on. until we reach the truth of the truths.
And then we ask
What is left to verify the truth of the truth so that the whole of the truth is true?
This reductionist approach brings us to relativism.
Say if we argue that, the fact is the fact of truth. and the truth is based on the fact and the fact is true.
How did we come upon the fact that supports the fact of the truth?
A Fact is the opinions of the public
and opinions are relative to an individual's subjective deductions.
and what is deducing?
the process of deducing is diluted by our opinions, past present experiences and also very much diluted by our grey morals.
and then what the hell is true about the truth?
Such debates can be never ending. and hence
Hugo suggest that, there ought to be a priori reasoning which are presupposed in our commonsense.(COMMON sense?) which are not established through deductions.
With that he suggested
Lonergan's 4 transcendal precepts
Which is to
be attentive
be intelligent(hypothesize)
be reasonable(picks the utmost true , instead of one that gratifies oneself)
be responsible(stay true to the reasoning)
And with that i shall APPLY the 4 precepts w regards to morals and interpersonal relationships(which is very very grey)
