User:Objectiveap

Greetings and Welcome to my User Page:

As of early 2018 I have jumped into becoming involved in Wikipedia - something in an article heading grabbed my attention and was motivating enough for me to not only join the site, but to also join the quest for the implementation of and enforcing of truth and knowledge on this incredibly successful experiment called Wikipedia. I now better recognize and appreciate the collective effort which creates such a valuable resource for people worldwide.

Couple things about me:
 * I have a degree with distinction in Philosophy
 * I own and operate multiple businesses
 * I do a lot of charity work and have great respect for all who do.
 * I have a questing mentality when it comes to truth, I am not fond of dishonoring it.
 * To illustrate and to the frustration of some close to me I do not: lie on my taxes, tell white lies to get out of socially awkward situations, tell people they look skinny when they don't. etc...
 * Sometimes the truth hurts, but it is through truth that we grow.
 * I have found that accepting and embracing truth even at the expense of your own reputation or (former) opinions is very, very good for you and one of the fastest ways to build character.

Socrates was a wise philosopher who attested that truth is all important. That no one can damage your soul, whatever method they may employ; they may only hurt your body or your mind. Only you can damage your soul (by speaking untruth for example). This is why he was unwilling to tell a lie even to save himself in a court case when he easily could have gotten off by simply arguing as lawyers do (with untruth). He knew and was willing to happily die unjustly (with his soul intact) by accepting the punishment of drinking the hemlock, rather than utter untruth. I tend to think he was right, though perhaps not an easy model to follow.

Wikipedia's goal is objective truth which is sometimes frustratingly differs from ultimate truth, but must be respected and administered correctly here, whatever our personal feelings may be.

Remember this in all arguments, and I've already noticed they seem to happen frequently here on Wikipedia: winning an argument based on arguments or lack thereof you know is not true may well be damaging to you in a way far worse than the temporary sting of losing an argument. I think most people feel this instinctively when it is happening. Look for what is true in the other person's argument and embrace that, be allied to truth more than to your own previous viewpoints.

Borrowing from Gandhi: Be Wedded to Truth, Not to Consistency.

However, if you know the truth objectively and you have embraced what parts of your opponents arguments are true, never surrender. Losing an argument on the side of truth is better than supporting untruth.

Here's to all who contribute to and defend truth in our world, and if you are reading this there are decent chances you are one of them! Objectiveap (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)