<p>I realized after posting my last essay that I had an unfair advantage in typing up my essay rather than writing it (I can type up to 200 or more words per min I think). So I wrote another essay with a pencil and timed myself. </p>
<h2>I think that my body paragraph is not very good in that I think I went either off in a tangent or did not adequately linked my evidence to fit the thesis. If you observe this too, please tell me exactly what I did wrong and how i can fix it. Thanks :)</h2>
<p>Topic: Is the truth always subject to interpretation?</p>
<p>Essay:</p>
<p>“What is truth?” Jesus asked his Roman interogater, Pontius Pilate. At this, Pilate remained silent for he knew not the answer. Even today, many people have difficultly in trying to answer this question posed by ancient and modern philosophers alike. However, the one thing that can be agreed on by most reasonable people is that truth is objective; it cannot be subjective otherwise it is temporary and contingent. Yet, can truth be subject to interpretation? Interpreting truth is subjective, yes, but the truth itself remains objective unless it is completely deviated by the extremity of humanity’s greed. So how do we get from objectivity to subjectivity? There is a step in between knowing the truth and interpreting the truth that makes the interpretation biased: application. For it is when we apply the truth and conform it to our society that the truth is then subject to interpretations and therefore create biasness and in some of the more serious cases, prejudice. </p>
<p>Thousands of years ago, going back to the supremacy of the ancient Greeks, Aristotle, a philosopher, recorded the following truths that he observed: the predictable motion of the stars, day and night, and the stillness of the earthly objects relative to the sky. With these truths that he observed, Aristotle then applied those truths to explain teh position of the earth in relations to the universe. Here was where Aristotle interpreted the truths as he created what has become known as the heliocentric theory. Aristotle interpreted the truth in that he formed an opinion of a natural phenomenon. THough he claimed it to be truth, Aristotle did not and could not know that his speculation was right or wrong, and therefore the only way he could assert his beliefs and apply the truths he witnessed is through an opinion that nobody challenged for the next fifteen hundred to two thousand years. But the important thing to note throughout Aristotle’s pondering is that it wasn’t until he applied the truths that truth became subject to interpretation, for before the application process, the truths were ntohing more than objective observances that could neither be challenged nor changed. </p>
<p>Therefore, using Aristotle as a source to support us, we can know that truth is only subject to interpretation when we try to apply the truth into our lives and into our society. Truth itself is objective; it can neither be changed nor altered because that is what truth is. In retrospect, we must be aware of this difference in a society where truths and thought-to-be-truths are being assailed from all sides by various ethnic, religious, and scientific communities throughout the globe. We can also be assured, however, that throughout the constant changes and subjectivity of the culture, we know that truth itself is constant, having no bias that can favor one “special” group or another. With this knowledge, we can find security and a solid base to rest our feet upon.</p>