Mercurial Hosting > arkian

--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/src/mikraite/Elementary_School_Education.html	Wed Sep 17 20:40:28 2025 -0600
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+<!doctype html>
+<html lang="en">
+	<head>
+		<script src="/site.js"></script>
+		<script> head() </script>
+		<title>Arkian - Elementary School Education</title>
+	</head>
+	<body>
+		<script> header() </script>
+		<div content>
+<h1>Elementary School Education</h1>
+
+<p>I define elementary school as grades 1 through 6, and high school as grades 7 through 12.  This post is about what should be taught in elementary school.</p>
+
+<p>I believe in the concept of a classical education.  Children should develop the core strengths and skills needed for life.  Specific practical skills can be learned later if a good foundation has been laid.  I see three core skills and three core strengths that should be developed in elementary school.</p>
+
+<p>Skill 1 - English.  This includes reading, writing, and speaking.  I haven't thought through the ideal way to do this.</p>
+
+<p>Skill 2 - Math.  This should be done using <a href="https://www.singaporemath.com/">Singapore Math</a>.</p>
+
+<p>Skill 3 - Scriptural Language.  Every child should learn the language of their scripture.  This serves two purposes.  First, everyone should learn a second language and this easiest to do as a child.  And second, children should understand their religion deeply, and this can only be done by reading their scripture in its original language.  Muslims should learn Arabic.  Christians should learn Greek.  Followers of the Old Testament should learn Hebrew.</p>
+
+<p>Strength 1 - Physical Strength.  All children should play sports.  This develops physical strength and coordination.</p>
+
+<p>Strength 2 - Mental Strength.  After long consideration, I concluded that the <a href="/go.html">Game of Go</a> is the best way to develop mental strength.  All children should play Go just as all children should play sports.</p>
+
+<p>Strength 3 - Moral Strength.  Moral strength is gained through the study of religion.  Each child should learn the religion of their parents.  So the religions of the families of the school should be taught.</p>
+
+<p>Science and history should not be taught in elementary school.  These subjects should be left for high school.</p>
+
+<script> mikraite('https://mikraite.arkian.net/Who-to-blame-for-modern-culture-tp2004.html',2020) </script>
+		</div>
+	</body>
+</html>
--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/src/mikraite/The_Rechabites_Example.html	Wed Sep 17 20:40:28 2025 -0600
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+<!doctype html>
+<html lang="en">
+	<head>
+		<script src="/site.js"></script>
+		<script> head() </script>
+		<title>Arkian - The Rechabites’ Example</title>
+	</head>
+	<body>
+		<script> header() </script>
+		<div content>
+<h1>The Rechabites’ Example</h1>
+
+<p><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2035&version=HCSB">http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2035&version=HCSB</a></p>
+
+<p>Jeremiah wrote this story shortly before Judah fell to Babylon.  At this time, the people of Judah had become corrupt and were strongly influenced by the surrounding cultures that worshipped Baal.  Please read this short story to understand what is written below.</p>
+
+<p>In this story, God tells Jeremiah to offer wine to the Rechabites which they refuse.  The point of this detail is clearly that the Rechabites had different customs and beliefs from the Israelites.  Yet both Talmudic Jews and Christians desperately try to show that the Rechabites believed in God.  This is because they believe that following God is the only right path.  It seems clear to me that this story is saying the exact opposite.  If you investigate the Jewish and Christian arguments, you will find them to be empty.  The truth is that the Old Testament never says what the religion of the Rechabites was.  The Old Testament is very good at including important facts and leaving out unimportant facts.  The reason that the religion of the Rechabites was left out is because it doesn't matter.  The point of this story is that any sound traditional culture is valid.  This is purely an argument for traditionalism of any kind.</p>
+
+<p>This story illustrates a fundamental difference between the view of the Old Testament and all monotheistic religions today.  All modern Western religions were influenced by Plato and believe in one absolute truth and one right path.  Compare the shahada of Islam which says "There is no god but God" with Deuteronomy 6:4 which says "Yehovah is our god, Yehovah is one.".  The shahada reflects modern thinking which says "my beliefs are right and everyone else's beliefs are wrong" while the Old Testament just says that its beliefs are a right path, and there can be other good paths.  Of course the Old Testament is not post-modernist, saying that all paths are equally valid.  It uses the example of the Rechabites as one other good path, but it condemns most other cultures which are evil.  In other words, a few paths/cultures are good, but most paths/cultures are bad.  In particular, proven traditional paths are good, and unproven recently invented paths are bad.</p>
+
+<p>This difference has a big practical implication for followers of the Old Testament.  It means that we can fully respect other sound religions even if we don't share their beliefs.  It is on this basis that I support Islam and regularly attent mosque.  Islam isn't my path, but I respect it and support it because, like the Rechabites, Muslims are holding on to their traditions.</p>
+
+<script> mikraite('https://mikraite.arkian.net/The-Rechabites-Example-tp1551.html',2017) </script>
+		</div>
+	</body>
+</html>
--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/src/mikraite/Translating_Psalm_94.html	Wed Sep 17 20:40:28 2025 -0600
@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+<!doctype html>
+<html lang="en">
+	<head>
+		<script src="/site.js"></script>
+		<script> head() </script>
+		<title>Arkian - Translating Psalm 94</title>
+	</head>
+	<body>
+		<script> header() </script>
+		<div content>
+<h1>Translating Psalm 94</h1>
+
+<blockquote>
+<p>God of vengeance, Yehovah, god of vengeance, show yourself.  Rise up, judge of the earth, repay the proud.  How long will the wicked, Yehovah, how long will the wicked rejoice and spout arrogance?  All the doers of evil crush your people, Yehovah, and defile your inheritance.  Blessed is the man who you instruct, Yehovah, and who learns from your teaching to be calm during evil times until a pit is dug for the wicked.  Because Yehovah will not abandon his people and will not leave his inheritance.  Therefore righteousness will return from judgement, and all those of right mind will follow it.  Will a destructive government that makes trouble by law be joined to you?  They band together against righteous souls and condemn innocent blood.  But Yehovah is my stronghold and my god is the rock of my refuge.  And he will bring on them their wickedness, and for their evil he will destroy them, Yehovah, our god, will destroy them.</p>
+</blockquote>
+<cite>Psalm 94:1-5,12-15,20-23  my translation</cite>
+
+<blockquote>
+<p>Lord, God of vengeance - God of vengeance, appear.  Rise up, Judge of the earth; repay the proud what they deserve.  Lord, how long will the wicked - how long will the wicked gloat?  They pour out arrogant words; all the evildoers boast.  Lord, they crush Your people; they afflict Your heritage.  Lord, happy is the man You discipline and teach from Your law to give him relief from troubled times until a pit is dug for the wicked.  The Lord will not forsake His people or abandon His heritage, for justice will again be righteous, and all the upright in heart will follow it.  Can a corrupt throne - one that creates trouble by law - become Your ally?  They band together against the life of the righteous and condemn the innocent to death.  But the Lord is my refuge; my God is the rock of my protection.  He will pay them back for their sins and destroy them for their evil.  The Lord our God will destroy them.</p>
+</blockquote>
+<cite>Psalm 94:1-5,12-15,20-23  HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible) translation</cite>
+
+<p>My Hebrew is very basic, but I have the advantage of not having a bias in translation.  I chose to compare to HCSB because that is the best translation I know of.  I will point out what I think are basic differences.</p>
+
+<p>The first obvious difference is that translations use "Lord" where I use "Yehovah".  The Hebrew has YHVH and the pronunciation is unknown.  Another popular pronunciation is "Yahweh" which is also fine.  But the point is that some reasonable pronunciation should be used, not "Lord" which reflects the jewish refusal to try to pronounce the name and is clearly wrong.</p>
+
+<p>mine - Blessed is the man who you instruct, Yehovah, and who learns from your teaching to be calm during evil times until a pit is dug for the wicked.<br>
+HCSB - Lord, happy is the man You discipline and teach from Your law to give him relief from troubled times until a pit is dug for the wicked.</p>
+
+<p>This difference is quite interesting and reflects the unwillingness of both Judaism and Christianity to recognize that the Old Testament is fundamentally a book of teaching, not of law or obedience.  A key Hebrew word is "torah" which is generally mistranslated as "law" but really means "teaching".  If you think about the HCSB sentence, it doesn't make logical sense.  How exactly would being disciplined through law bring relief from troubled times?  In contrast, my sentence makes logical sense.  One learns from Yehovah's teaching that ultimately justice will prevail, so one can be calm until this happens.  And in fact the next sentence begins with "Because" as an explanation, which HCSB has to leave out because of their broken logic.</p>
+
+<p>Where I translate "right minded" HCSB has "upright in heart".  Hebrew has just one word for both "mind" and "heart" which actually makes sense both logically and anatomically (because thoughts and emotions come from the same organ, the brain).  But in the context of teaching and judgement, "mind" is a better translation than "heart".  In fact Jewish and Christian translations always translate this Hebrew word as heart, never as mind, throughout the Old Testament because these religions hate the mind and hate intellect.  They want to focus on emotion at the expense of thought.</p>
+
+<p>Where I translate "government", HCSB has "throne".  Here HCSB is more literally accurate but misses the point.  I am clarifying the meaning for the reader because the throne back then meant the government.  To the modern reader, my sentence is more meaningful.</p>
+
+<p>In the last sentence, I really tried to preserve the feeling of the Hebrew which I think HCSB failed to do.  Compare:</p>
+
+<p>mine - And he will bring on them their wickedness, and for their evil he will destroy them, Yehovah, our god, will destroy them.<br>
+HCSB - He will pay them back for their sins and destroy them for their evil.  The Lord our God will destroy them.</p>
+
+<p>In Hebrew the two instances of "will destroy them" are right next to each other for effect.  This isn't possible with English grammar but I tried to preserve the effect by preserving the Hebrew order of phrases as much as possible.
+
+<p>In general I think Psalm 94 is quite un-Jewish and un-Christian, and so I think it was translated by both religions with little enthusiasm for preserving the original feeling of this Psalm.  But this Psalm is actually representative of the Old Testament where Yehovah is repeatedly described as loving goodness and hating badness/evil.  The modern Christian god is all love and no hate, which the Christians need as they sink into moral decay and want to avoid punishment for this.</p>
+
+<p>To the modern Christian, Psalm 94 sounds like a Psalm for terrorists.  But in fact the opposite is true.  It is precisely because one can trust in Yehovah's judgement that no terrorism is actually needed against evil.  Yehovah will destroy modern Western culture because it has become evil, and there no need for any good religious person to get involved in this.  In fact being a terrorist is just evidence of lack of faith in Yehovah's justice.  I know that Yehovah will kill far more members of modern culture than any terrorist could dream of doing.  Yehovah will do this through war or through economic disasters or natural disasters or some other means that I haven't thought of.  But as Psalm 94 makes clear, Yehovah will certainly destroy modern Western culture, and this knowledge gives me great comfort.</p>
+
+<script> mikraite('https://mikraite.arkian.net/Translating-Psalm-94-tp1538.html',2017) </script>
+		</div>
+	</body>
+</html>
--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/src/mikraite/Truth.html	Wed Sep 17 20:40:28 2025 -0600
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+<!doctype html>
+<html lang="en">
+	<head>
+		<script src="/site.js"></script>
+		<script> head() </script>
+		<title>Arkian - Truth</title>
+	</head>
+	<body>
+		<script> header() </script>
+		<div content>
+<h1>Truth</h1>
+
+<p>There are two basic questions about truth - where is the source of truth and where is truth located.  The answers to both questions is either internal or external.  Based on the answers to these questions, we can classify belief systems.</p>
+
+<p>external source, external location:  traditional Christianity, traditional Islam, Western empiricism</p>
+
+<p>internal source, external location:  Plato, modern Christianity, Mu'tazila Islam, Sufi Islam, rationalism, modernism</p>
+
+<p>external source, internal location:  Old Testament</p>
+
+<p>internal source, internal location:  Talmudic Judaism, post-modernism</p>
+
+<p>The first question is easier to understand.  External sources for truth include empirical evidence and scripture.  Internal sources for truth include reason and spiritual inspiration.  Traditional religions focus on scripture.  Empiricism, including most science, focuses on empirical evidence.  The Old Testament combines both by having a scripture that argues empirically.  Plato, Mu'tazila, rationalism, modernism, and Talmudic Judaism use reason as their source of truth.  Modern Christianity, Sufi Islam, and various other crazy religions believe that people can find truth by supernatural inspiration.</p>
+
+<p>On this first question, I strongly support external sources of truth and oppose internal sources of truth.  Internal sources of truth will always end up serving to rationalize whatever people want to believe.  It makes little difference whether the method is reason or supernatural inspiration, the result is the same.  One can see this today in the shared insane beliefs of modern Christians and secular modernists.  Of the external sources, I prefer empirical evidence for the highly intelligent, and prefer scripture for everyone else.  But both are valid.  Scripture is stable and is tested over time.  Religious books that don't work are selected out by the historical evolution of religions, so scriptures that are old tend to be valid.</p>
+
+<p>The second question is very hard for most people to understand.  This is because Western culture is all based on Plato where truth is located externally and is understood based on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_theory_of_truth">the correspondence theory of truth</a>.  The alternative is that truth is internal, located in your mind.  I am not going to try to fully explain this here, but to try to understand it, you can read <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0096BCVPG/">The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture</a> and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Zen-Art-Motorcycle-Maintenance-Inquiry/dp/0060589469/">Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance</a>.  The result of this view is relativism which allows one to tolerate other views.  In the case of Talmudic Judaism, truth is relative to the group of people and Jews have their own truth and what everyone else believes is irrelevant.  This allows them to function as successful parasites within other cultures with differing beliefs.  Post-modernism is less coherent but they basically view truth as subjective.  In other words, truth is whatever you want to believe is true.  I would describe this belief as temporary cultural insanity which will soon be wiped out, so it isn't very relevant.  The Old Testament considers any belief system valid that works over the long term.  This is confirmed in the <a href="The_Rechabites_Example.html">The Rechabites’ Example</a>.</p>
+
+<p>Two related concepts are absolute versus relative and objective versus subjective.  To say that truth is located externally is to believe in absolute truth, while saying that truth is located internally is to believe in relative truth.  An external source of truth implies that there is an objective standard for truth, while an internal source of truth implies that truth is subjective.  So external source and external location, like classical Western empiricism, means objective absolute truth.  The systems with internal source and external location are actually subjective absolute truth which sounds like a contradiction because it really is nonsense.  In other words, these systems determine what they consider to be absolute truth using subjective means.  The result is intolerant advocacy of insane beliefs, as can be seen in modern culture.  Internal source and internal location means subjective relative truth.  In the case of Talmudic Judaism, truth is relative to Jews as a group and is subjective based on the collective reasoning of the rabbis.  So this kind of works because it is at a group level.  In the case of post-modernism, truth is relative to the individual and subjectively determined by the individual.  This won't last long.  And finally, the Old Testament is external source and internal location, so objective relative truth.  Even though truth is relative, it can be judged objectively based on real world performance.  This means that multiple conflicting belief systems can be true for different people without a problem.  But any belief system that fails to meet the expectations of those who hold it in the long run are objectively false.</p>
+
+<p>Normally I don't write about philosophy both because it tends to be irrelevant and because most people can't understand my views.  But in this case there is a very practical implication.  Because very few people follow the Old Testament, we must ally with another group to survive.  For this to work, it is essential that our truth is external source and internal location, and that the group that we ally with has a truth that is external source.  The latter point is easy to understand because only external source truth works in the long run in the real world.  But the first point, our truth, is critical because unless we believe internal location, meaning relative truth, we will not really be capable of properly respecting another religion.  I can respect Islam as a relative truth for Muslims, a truth that works for them, but that I don't share.</p>
+
+<script> mikraite('https://mikraite.arkian.net/Truth-tp1552.html',2017) </script>
+		</div>
+	</body>
+</html>
--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/src/mikraite/Truth_and_Alternatives.html	Wed Sep 17 20:40:28 2025 -0600
@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+<!doctype html>
+<html lang="en">
+	<head>
+		<script src="/site.js"></script>
+		<script> head() </script>
+		<title>Arkian - Truth and Alternatives</title>
+	</head>
+	<body>
+		<script> header() </script>
+		<div content>
+<h1>Truth and Alternatives</h1>
+
+<p>How does one judge something?  The Western tradition judges based on truth.  This is because truth is the highest value in the Western tradition.  Other traditions have other highest values which they would use to judge.  I will consider truth and then alternatives.</p>
+
+<p>Philosophy is supposed to seek the deepest meaning.  Unfortunately it rarely does this.  Often it just plays semantic games.  Much of it is like Humpty Dumpty:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+<p>"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.<br>
+Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "<br>
+"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.<br>
+"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."<br>
+"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."<br>
+"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."</p>
+</blockquote>
+<cite><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumpty#In_Through_the_Looking-Glass">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumpty#In_Through_the_Looking-Glass</a></cite>
+
+<p>Words should retain their common meaning.  If they don't, then one is creating confusion rather than insight.  I myself am guilty of this which is why I am writing this post.  In the past, <a href="Truth.html">I talked about "relative truth"</a>.  But in fact this is nonsense because the common meaning of truth is absolute.</p>
+
+<p>Let me look at the real meanings of the word "true":</p>
+
+<p>1.  Logically true.  This comes from formal logic.  Math is an extension of logic.  A statement is true in a logical system if it can be derived from the axioms of that system.</p>
+<p>2.  A boolean literal in computer programming.  This is relevant because programming uses the concepts of a culture to express algorithms, and the type boolean expresses the concept of truth.</p>
+<p>3.  Corresponds to reality.  This is the most common usage and comes from the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_theory_of_truth">correspondence theory of truth</a>.  This concept is fundamentally absolute.  This truth is also boolean and requires logical consistency which means that two statements that logically conflict cannot both be true.  This concept originates with Plato.</p>
+
+<p>It is hard for members of Western culture to think in terms of alternatives to truth.  But in fact other cultures had fundamentally different ways of looking at the world which did not involve truth.  It probably requires an entire book to convey these other view.  So I will start by recommending the book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Zen-Art-Motorcycle-Maintenance-Inquiry/dp/0060589469/">Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance</a> which discusses the Ancient Athenian <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arete">Arete</a>.  "Arete" means excellence and was the highest value of Athenians.  Judgement was based on what is best.  The details of what is good was widely discussed and agreed on by the culture.  Correspondence truth simply wasn't a concept.  But they had other concepts like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos">Logos</a> which implied that reason could help determine what is good.  Later when Plato's truth became dominant, the concept of Logos absorbed truth.</p>
+
+<p>Another alternative to truth comes from the Old Testament.  This is the Hebrew word "emet".  I would translate this word as "trustworthy" or "trustworthiness".  The book that fully explains this concept is <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0096BCVPG/">The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture</a>.  This book takes the approach I used to take which is to say that emet is a concept of truth based on reliability.  But I think it is better to just not associate emet with truth at all.  The words "reliable" and "trustworthy" are synonyms, so one can use either word.  The book uses "reliable" but I prefer "trustworthy" just because it sounds more positive.  Hebrew also has a word like the Greek "logos" which is the Hebrew "davar".</p>
+
+<p>The difference between "emet" and "arete" is that "arete" is current goodness while "emet" is the aggregate of all expected future goodness.  This is why Athens produced spectacular goodness and then died while the Old Testament (indirectly) produced goodness throughout history.</p>
+
+<p>Let's contrast trustworthy with true.  True is absolute.  Trustworthy is not absolute because what may be trustworthy in one environment may not be in another environment.  For example keeping the Sabbath is a trustworthy way to sustain the religion of the Old Testament but not of Islam.  But daily prayer is the trustworthy way to sustain Islam but not the Old Testament.  So each practice is trustworthy in its own context.  But in some cases there will be universal consistency.  For example a scientific theory is trustworthy if it can be trusted to predict experimental results.  This kind of trustworthiness will be universal across time and space.  But even this may depend on other kinds of context as I will explain.</p>
+
+<p>Logical truth is relative to the truth system based on its axioms.  Geometry is an example.  Euclidean geometry is based on five axioms.  Modifying the fifth axiom produces other non-Euclidean geometries.  All this sounds abstract, but science applies this to reality.  Newton's Laws are based on Euclidean geometry while General Relativity is based on a non-Euclidean geometry.  So here we have two scientific theories describing the same reality using conflicting logical systems.  Newton's Laws are trustworthy within our scale of mass and speed.  General Relativity works on broader scale and Newton's Laws turn out to be an approximation of General Relativity at our scale.  Based on the absolute boolean concept of truth, one would be forced to call Newton's Laws false.  But based on trustworthiness, one would call Newton's Laws trustworthy at human scale.</p>
+
+<p>In quantum mechanics, the correspondence theory of truth causes real problems.  For example <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Interference_of_individual_particles">the single photon version of the double-slit experiment</a> shows that light acts both as a wave and a particle at the same time.  If we try to make light correspond to any concept in our mind, then the results of the experiment make no sense.  But thinking based on trustworthiness eliminates the need to look for corresponding concepts, and we can just say that light is what it is and we have no need to conceptualize it.  Deeper quantum mechanics is even worse.  This says that in reality every object behaves like a probability distribution, not like an object as we think of it.  The correspondence theory of truth demands <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics">an interpretation</a> and the poor physicists try, but nothing is satisfying.  Once again, focusing on trustworthiness eliminates the problem and simply says that the math works.</p>
+
+<p>What about conflicting stories in the Old Testament and the Quran?  Based on truth, these stories cannot both be true.  But if one focuses on trustworthiness, there is no conflict.  Unlike a scientific theory, these stories cannot be experimentally tested so their trustworthiness does not depend on this.  It is important that the stories are logically consistent with the rest of the religion.  But there is no absolute standard for logical comparison.  The most important aspect of these stories is that they can be trusted to support the values of their religion.  So the core point here is that conflicting stories can be accepted as trustworthy but not as true.  Someone who focuses on truth must choose between the stories.  Someone who focuses on trustworthiness has no need to choose and can accept both in context.</p>
+
+<p>I personally take the Old Testament view and use trustworthiness as my core standard of judgement.  I do not use correspondence truth.  Of course I understand the concept of truth, but it is not a tool I use.  It is not part of my mental toolbox that I use for judgement.</p>
+
+<p>As a programmer, I would like to mention what a trustworthiness type would be like.  The type boolean corresponds to truth with just two possible values.  A type trustworthiness would hold a real (floating point) number between -1 and 1.  The value 0 would mean that you have no idea whether something will deliver the goodness that you expect.  The value -1 means that you can count on it not delivering goodness and maybe count on it to deliver badness.  So we can write this equation:</p>
+
+<p>long term value = trustworthiness * importance</p>
+
+<p>It is somewhat interesting that the <a href="https://www.etymonline.com/word/true">etymology of "true"</a> shows that it used to mean trustworthy.  This shouldn't be surprising since this seems to be the natural concept for cultures before they are exposed to Plato.  But this is the past and now Plato owns the word "true" so I make no claim on it and simply give it up.</p>
+
+<p>Returning to the Old Testament, English translations translate "emet" as "true".  This is wrong, but then there are so words that are mistranslated that the English versions of the Old Testament are hopeless.  One simply needs to look at the Hebrew to get the real meaning.  From the Hebrew one can see that concept of the correspondence theory of truth simply doesn't exist in the Old Testament.  The core values are goodness and trustworthiness.</p>
+
+<p>Christianity merged the Old Testament with Plato.  Christianity holds truth as the highest value (regardless of whether Christianity actually is true or not).  The Gospel of John makes this particularly clear.  With Christianity, trustworthiness is entirely replaced by truth, which is one reason why "emet" is mistranslated.</p>
+
+<p>Islam today shares the Christian view that truth is the highest value.  But did this come from the Quran or from exposure to Christian and Greek culture?  Does the Quran use truth or trustworthiness or some other concept as its core value?  I am totally unqualified to answer this because I don't know Arabic.  For someone to answer this, they would need to know both Arabic and philosophy.  Unfortunately Islam today rejects philosophy, so the number of people currently qualified to think about this question is likely very small.</p>
+
+<p>Now I will continue and look at another alternative to truth which is desire.  In a culture with no religion, people become like animals and simply act on their desire.  This is how these people makes judgements, they judge based on their desire.  Christianity is based on truth and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uULqvWYXYI">this video</a> is a good explanation by a Catholic of how decaying religion causes truth to be replaced by desire.  Such cultures tend to become primitive since no sustained goodness can be developed.  One finds this in much of the third world.</p>
+
+<p>And the final alternative to truth that I want to discuss is degeneracy.  Degeneracy is worse than desire, it is the active support of evil/badness.  The most degenerate culture in the world today is American culture, so I would like to explain exactly what degeneracy is and how it happens.  The value of degeneracy is badness.  This is an anti-morality in the sense that self-discipline is applied to act worse than one would if one simply followed one's desires.  Applying degeneracy to judgement means always judging for evil.  This is what Americans do today.</p>
+
+<p>Degeneracy can only develop in a good culture.  Good people tend to be comfortable in a good culture.  It is the people who have the strongest natural tendency for evil who feel most oppressed in a good culture.  Good cultures tend become prosperous and tolerant over time.  As tolerance increases, the first people to take advantage of this to rebel against the dominant good culture will be the most evil people.  Of these people, the most intelligent will seek ways to rationalize their evil.  This rationalization becomes an ideology that all evil people can get behind.  This ideology will be significantly worse than the desires of average people because this ideology is specifically designed by the most evil people based on their desires.  One standard feature of such ideologies is feminism which is the key means by which the ideology spreads to the rest of the population.  The evil people support adultery and feminism is the means to enable adultery.  Too much tolerance means that these evil people get away with adultery which causes women to become attracted to evil men for reasons I explain <a href="In_Defense_of_Feminism.html">here</a> and <a href="Human_Evolution.html">here</a>.  Since average men want to attract women, they conform to what women want in men.  And in this case, women will be attracted to the evil ideology so then men will also support it to attract women.  And so the whole society shifts from supporting good to supporting evil.</p>
+
+<p>The ideology of evil needs an argument against truth, trustworthiness, and goodness.  The philosophy of this argument is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism">Postmodernism</a>.  Postmodernism says that truth is subjective in order to attack truth.  It replaces truth with power as the means to determine what is right.  Emphasizing power justifies the use of power to implement evil, which is the goal.  For all practical purposes, Postmodernism is simply godless Satanism.  Postmodernism is the dominant philosophy in the West today.</p>
+
+<p>A society that supports degeneracy goes into rapid decline and soon collapses.  At that point, men shift their focus from women to survival and so the evil ideology fades away.  Men begin to act only on their desire which is a significant improvement over degeneracy.  For example, degenerate men will support the idea of women dressing provocatively because that is part of the evil ideology.  But when men switch to their own desire, they naturally do not want their wives and daughters dressing like this, so things improve.</p>
+
+<p>This completes my discussion of truth and its alternative.  There may be other alternatives to truth from cultures outside the West, but I don't know about them.</p>
+
+<script> mikraite('https://mikraite.arkian.net/Truth-and-Alternatives-tp1898.html',2018) </script>
+		</div>
+	</body>
+</html>
--- a/src/mikraite/mikraite.html	Wed Sep 17 19:49:43 2025 -0600
+++ b/src/mikraite/mikraite.html	Wed Sep 17 20:40:28 2025 -0600
@@ -17,6 +17,11 @@
 				<li><a href="Science.html">Science</a> - 2024</li>
 				<li><a href="Who_to_blame_for_modern_culture.html">Who to blame for modern culture</a> - 2020</li>
 				<li><a href="Science_Requires_Monotheism.html">Science Requires Monotheism</a> - 2020</li>
+				<li><a href="Elementary_School_Education.html">Elementary School Education</a> - 2020</li>
+				<li><a href="Truth_and_Alternatives.html">Truth and Alternatives</a> - 2018</li>
+				<li><a href="Truth.html">Truth</a> - 2017</li>
+				<li><a href="The_Rechabites_Example.html">The Rechabites’ Example</a> - 2017</li>
+				<li><a href="Translating_Psalm_94.html">Translating Psalm 94</a> - 2017</li>
 				<li><a href="In_Defense_of_Feminism.html">In Defense of Feminism</a> - 2016</li>
 				<li><a href="Understanding.html">Understanding</a> - 2013</li>
 				<li><a href="The_Rise_and_Fall_of_Christian_Culture.html">The Rise and Fall of Christian Culture</a> - 2013</li>