How do you think the majority of Czechs feel about truth? It is absolute or more relative? *Irish_chick
I'm not so sure about "absolute truth" but I can tell you that Czechs do not try to spare feelings when they have an opinion to share. They are not phony- meaning they don't shower one with compliments when they don't really mean it. If my Czech husband isn't crazy about something I've made for dinner- he has no problem telling me its "not bad." I joke about his use of "not bad." When something is "not bad" its not necessarily GOOD either.
Yes, I too have found that Czech people tend to speak their minds without unnecessary waffle. But as to the various definitions of truth, people are people, no matter what the nationality, where they each have their own strengths and weaknesses, where they can speak the truth, half truths and/or lies. Also say some people view a certain situation or event, where each one of those people make their own genuine interpretation of it. Yet those same individual interpretations could be quite different in context, and which in turn could be seen by others as being true and untrue as the case may be. Therefore, the truth in that sense can mean very different things in the eyes of different people. I think that it is enough to find at least one person who is genuine and speaks the truth, but to automatically believe that a certain group of people are all speaking the truth would be very unwise, for whatever reason one formed that original belief. As some people can change; branching out and growing in different directions.
What do you mean Irish chick? Your question is not far from "the White Knight`s plan to dye one`s whiskers green, and always use so large a fan that they could not be seen." in terms of its meaning. "What is truth? said jesting Pilate: and would not stay for an answer" (Francis Bacon, Essays, Of Truth) Is this the meaning of your relative truth? Does relative truth mean that there is no such thing as objective knowledge of realities independent of the knower? But if that is the state of affairs then the relativistic thesis itself cannot be an item of objective knowledge. Intuitively, you probably want to know whether Czechs are so-called "universalists" or "particularists". This is a problem as old as the hills (still open to question) but it need not be so dry, boring and ivory towerish when put in some non-abstract context. You are on the verge of being caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. So consider the following: You are a passenger in a car driven by a close friend, and your close friend`s car hits a pedestrian. You know that your friend was going at least 35 miles per hour in an area where the maximum speed was 20 miles an hour. There are no witnesses. Your friend`s lawyer says that if you testify under oath that the speed was only 20 miles an hour then you would save your friend from any serious consequences. What would you do? Would you lie to protect your friend? What right does your friend have to expect your help? On the other hand what are your obligations to society to uphold the law? Do you think Irish Chick that Czechs would put the law before their friends? Or particular circumstances matter much more than the universal law? karel
