(March 13, 2015 at 10:39 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I've often talked about truth only being contextual. For example, in the context of everyday life, Aunt Ethel is definitely very real. In the context of QM mechanics, you'd be hard-pressed to find her anywhere. In the context of QM, things are intrinsically unpredictable. In the context of mundane reality, billiard balls bounce the right way every time no matter what.Sure, within the framework of reality under discussion, love is only a word used to capture a phenomenon that is every bit as physically reducible to the same common stock of energy particles that other physical objects are arranged by.
But here's my question. Should something that we take as real in context, like love or beauty, be called real? Or must reality be based on an ultimate truth, something which holds true in ALL contexts?
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
