I'd like to start by defining absolute truth. Absolute truth is something that is true regardless of the context. My definition itself being different to that of esras proves truth is relative to circumstances. Our 'truth' today depends on the side of the debate we are on. The link here is the fact that we use our language as a tool against truth, and this language is filled with kludges that block the existence of absolute truth. Geoffrey Robertson does the same when writing, adding his perspective To the prisoner of Venda. The justice game, being a non-fiction book, automatically causes us to see the content as truth. Robertson uses this medium to position himself on a level of superiority where he tells us, the readers, his perspective in such a way that we see it as a fact. This links to Robertsons context as a lawyer, as a lawyers purpose is to show a representation of truth that will defend someone, rather than an absolute truth. If there was an absolute truth there'd be no need for lawyers. Robertsons value of human rights causes his perspective to conflict with the perspective of the ruling white class at the time. His tone towards Robert ratshitanga is admirable. In the opening lines of the chapter he refers to ratshitanga as the most courageous man I ever met. This is because to Robertson, Robert ratshitanga was an innocent man with great dignity. From the perspective of the south African apartheid group ratshitanga was a criminal. The difference in tone used by the judge and the tone used by Robertson shows that although personal truth does exist, absolute truth is restricted by the term 'absolute'. He uses hyperbole when referring to him as the epitome of courage.
I'd like to start by defining absolute truth. Absolute truth is something that is true regardless of the context. My definition itself being different to that of esras proves truth is relative to circumstances. Our 'truth' today depends on the side of the debate we are on. The link here is the fact that we use our language as a tool against truth, and this language is filled with kludges that block the existence of absolute truth. Geoffrey Robertson does the same when writing, adding his perspective To the prisoner of Venda. The justice game, being a non-fiction book, automatically causes us to see the content as truth. Robertson uses this medium to position himself on a level of superiority where he tells us, the readers, his perspective in such a way that we see it as a fact. This links to Robertsons context as a lawyer, as a lawyers purpose is to show a representation of truth that will defend someone, rather than an absolute truth. If there was an absolute truth there'd be no need for lawyers. Robertsons value of human rights causes his perspective to conflict with the perspective of the ruling white class at the time. His tone towards Robert ratshitanga is admirable. In the opening lines of the chapter he refers to ratshitanga as the most courageous man I ever met. This is because to Robertson, Robert ratshitanga was an innocent man with great dignity. From the perspective of the south African apartheid group ratshitanga was a criminal. The difference in tone used by the judge and the tone used by Robertson shows that although personal truth does exist, absolute truth is restricted by the term 'absolute'. He uses hyperbole when referring to him as the epitome of courage.