All thought, belief, and statements thereof presuppose truth. There's quite a bit of power there.

That's not flooble. — creativesoul

Seeing these truths is a matter of coming to know yourself (which may involve living enough to grow into who you are)?

Once a moral truth comes into view and it seems like the leaves on a growing plant, is it a mistake to feel downward toward its roots? To see whether it comes from within or without? And if its within, is there a collective unconscious down there?

Are you saying there are just different myths for what's at the root of these truths? — frank

I may be responding at an angle to what you're getting at.

It's a weird thing to talk about because so many categories get blurred. And I am still far on the pre-side of embodying any moral truth I may have glimpsed. I want to say an enactment of a moral truth takes the whole plant, down to where the roots of the individual plant dissolve in a larger network.

On the other hand, I think the kind of foundational analysis of roots you'd get in a Descartes is less important here, and can even muddy things.

On the other other hand, you have to have something self-monitoring because fully embodied moral truths have a bad tendency to end up in [inquisition, fascism, genocide]

I feel like it is important to know what is fear and resentment masquerading.

Explain the criticism Banno. It's unacceptable. Textbook problem. Salva veritate. Leibniz.

Not to mention, it's not allowed in substitution to begin with. We cannot substitute one term for several different terms unless they all mean the same thing. In this case, in this use... they do not.

...

we all know what true is — Banno

Hey that could make for a cool-sounding adage of sorts.

"We all know what true is, but we don't know all that is true."