>What do you mean? You never even defined your "truth." All you said was some nonsense like "Is not truth self-defining?"Aristotle provided a 42 word definition over 2,000 years ago. Each of the words in English is only 1 syllable. I am still waitingfor your improved definition.

"Although there were many differences among the Sophists in terms of their specific teachings, it is safe to say that there was a common philosophy which many Sophists shared and which permeated their teachings. The most prominent element in this philosophy was skepticism (`a doubting state of mind'). The skepticism of the Sophists took various forms: phenomenalism, the belief that we can only know ideas present in our mind, but not the objects of perception outside our mind (so that it is useless to make a definitive statement about anything outside our own mind); empiricism, the doctrine that experience, particularly of the senses, is our only source of knowledge; and above all, relativism, the theory that truth has no independent absolute existence, but is dependent upon the individual and the particular situation in which one finds oneself.""Although the physis - nomos antithesis was common in the teachings of most Sophists, their views of physis with regard to human nature could differ widely. To some Sophists, the realization that all men have much the same human nature required the abolishment of all artificial distinctions among men, such as Hellene and Barbarian, master and slave. Other Sophists saw human nature as an aggregate of man's animalistic inclinations to aggression and domination by physical strength. Human law (nomos) which restricted those inclinations was seen as an artificial constraint contrary to the natural order of things, created by the weaker members of society. This view was the philosophical basis of the rhetorical argument of "the right of the stronger" ("might makes right") which is used by a number of speakers in Thucydides's History and which you will see advanced by the sophist Thrasymachus in Plato's Republic. The Sophists who advocated this argument saw men in the image of animals in the wild and often recommended the animal world as a model for the human. According to this view, any attempt to constrain the natural human tendency of aggression is not only wrong, but useless. Nature overrides any artificial constraints set up by man. Just as in the animal world, the strong will always be victorious over and dominate the weak. Not all Sophists, however, subscribed to this theory. Protagoras believed that men, left to their own natural savage instincts, would destroy each other. In his view nomos, although only an artificial creation of man, enables men to survive and makes possible civilized communal life."http://depthome.brooklyn.cuny.edu/class ... phists.htm

>I am still baffled as to why you provide a history lesson when asked for a definition Did Aristotle teach that or something?In your stumbling attempt to enjoin debates and advance arguments, you have given a far more compelling reason than I ever could for modern day citizens to read the Socratic dialogues [Plato], Plato's collected works and Aristotle. It is historically fitting, that given my icon, and the naming of Wilmott's Lyceum after the school that Aristotle founded, that someone should waddle in to our happy forum pronouncing the bankrupt notions that the wayward Sophists did over 2,000 years ago.So, rather than waste any more bandwidth discussing with a sophist, I simply refer the interested readers to the enemies of the sophists, particularly Socrates and Plato. When you have time Aristotle's definition of truth is quite good as well.At first I thought that you had taken a wayward turn at the Renaissance or Enlightenment; I can see that you haven't progressed any farther than the primitive Sophists. My apologies for not recognizing you earlier.Good day.

You two are so cute when you fight.