for some reason, the part of Hey Nostradamus! that just sticks in my mind is the part in which Reg tells his son Jason that he is a murderer, even though as the reader percieves it, Jason is a hero. Upon reading this the reader flares up against Reg, because it appears so obvious that Jason didn't kill the shooter out of malice or a will to kill some one, he did it to protect all of his innocent classmates. i completely agree with that, i don't believe Jason is a 'murderer,' but if you stop to think, as far as everything that Reg believes, and what he holds to be true, he is correct in the way in which he labels his son. to me this goes back to the discussion we had in tutorial about what truth is. in both different sets of views or ideals (those of the reader/Jason vs. those of Reg) there is a truth to each respective side. the problem is that those two truths are in conflict and that there is no way to say whose truth has more validity. does this make all truth subjective? there obviously are some subjective truths in the world, actual facts, but a lot of the content of this course have led me to believe that the big truths out there, the moral truths,have to be looked at subjectively and relatively. but when you start looking at truths relatively, everything sort of starts to lose meaning. you need to have some basis of comparison if everything is relative, but if everything is defined in it's relation to other things you can't do that. ahhhh. i don't think i'm even talking about what i started talking about anymore. basically what i was going for was that if truth and thereby reality are subjective can there be a point in searching out truth and separating from fiction?