The study of subjective and objective is fairly interesting. But this discussion, along with the relativism and absolutisms, has one primary problem; they lead to simple disagreement and no real search for truth. A subjectively thinking person can simply brush off something said by a objectively thinking person because the schools of thought. The subjective does not need to comprehend much less debate the statement made by a objective. The objective person knows that not every thing is objective (ice cream taste good). However the subjective person can say that the world being round is simply my understanding of the truth and there for it needs no more consideration. The same is true for the relativist and absolutist. To have a good discussion two things are need. 1) Ground rules are need, what assumptions are both party's basing there argument on. 2) A winner in the end. No one watches a boxing match to see a tie. Until these two things are implemented talking is just a wast of time and energy. The Bible would be a good base to work form. Not everyone agrees that it is true but they can argue that its not.

2 Timothy 2:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

Yesterday I started reading Sun-tzu's Art of War. The book its self is very short but there is a lot of commentary. The book has 13 chapters each being very short. Master Sun (as he is referred to in the book) was very wise. His view of war was simple; fight for prophet not for the sake of killing. He talks about fighting the strategy its self. the point he is trying to make is that politics is part of your arsenal. Moral and strain on one's country are also important to remember. His approach to war I like. I be leave that war is unavoidable and that the need for military is utterly fundamental to survival of a country or people group. This is not to say that war is always the answer but waiting too long to fight can mean more death. The world is a fallen one and war is a result of that.

Thursday was interesting. The article we had to read spurred some conversation but nothing particularly good. To me it seem that I was the only one who really cared about what the author was saying and I disagreed with him. I am out numbered. Plain and simple. The biggest problem here is that, in order to search for truth, debate is needed. This goes back to the Yale Freshmen article, communication. I'll stick to my guns but it is a lot of work when a) the majority of the class won't listen or doesn't try to understand, and b) there is no opposing view point. The last point made in class was that "humility is essential in the search for truth." Part of this is thinking about other points of view. Where is the other point of view? Where is the guy who says that we can be certain? The fact that an opposing view point is not being presented goes directly against what we talked about in class.