SpheresOfBalance wrote:You're talking about labels, which are 'relative' in terms of their creation and everyones acceptance. That only once they're accepted amongst a 'group' of people, can that label be said to be absolute amongst that 'group.' Can't you then see that the labels "sun" and "moon" are in fact a part of a particular language of one 'group' of people, which is in fact 'relative' amongst 'all' the other 'groups' of people?
I.E., RELATIVISM!
alpha wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
alpha wrote:
who's talking about other groups of people? i'm talking about one accepted thing among a group of people, being relative to some individuals of the same group, i.e., absurdity. my example was very clear; two neighbors speaking the same language, using the same dictionary as reference, and both had agreed to be literal about what they'll say. i thought it was clear that no martians were present in that scenario.
Yet you've changed the rules throughout the entire course of this thread. Within your fiction, you can make it anything you want, as you go, and you surely have. I found error in your original, that it was incomplete, now you have completed it, and still there is relativity, as you can't be sure he isn't lying to you, you have no way to know. He might be messing with your head, for all you can know. RELATIVITY!
messing with my head isn't relativity, it's stupidity. No it's only stupidity to your way of thinking, obviously not his, again relativity!
if your answer for every argument that you can't win is "he might be messing with your head", then clearly nothing in the world can ever be known or determined. if someone says "1+1=3", he might not be wrong, because he might just be "messing with me".
Hey maybe you're finally starting to get it, yes from the perspective of any particular human, RELATIVITY!
Hobbes' Choice wrote:You are saying that relativism is wrong because relativists say that black is white.
[Hobbes knocks Alpha on the head (a hollow sound returns)}
Relativism does not say that!
i'm saying that even if someone says "black=white", relativists would still argue that it could be true under so and so (hypothetical) circumstances.
again, i've seen walls that weren't as thick as you.
alpha wrote:
who's talking about other groups of people? i'm talking about one accepted thing among a group of people, being relative to some individuals of the same group, i.e., absurdity. my example was very clear; two neighbors speaking the same language, using the same dictionary as reference, and both had agreed to be literal about what they'll say. i thought it was clear that no martians were present in that scenario.
Yet you've changed the rules throughout the entire course of this thread. Within your fiction, you can make it anything you want, as you go, and you surely have. I found error in your original, that it was incomplete, now you have completed it, and still there is relativity, as you can't be sure he isn't lying to you, you have no way to know. He might be messing with your head, for all you can know. RELATIVITY!
messing with my head isn't relativity, it's stupidity. No it's only stupidity to your way of thinking, obviously not his, again relativity!
if your answer for every argument that you can't win is "he might be messing with your head", then clearly nothing in the world can ever be known or determined. if someone says "1+1=3", he might not be wrong, because he might just be "messing with me".[/quote] Hey maybe you're finally starting to get it, yes from the perspective of any particular human, RELATIVITY![/quote]
so any idiot's beliefs are equal to actual (universal) truths?
alpha wrote:
who's talking about other groups of people? i'm talking about one accepted thing among a group of people, being relative to some individuals of the same group, i.e., absurdity. my example was very clear; two neighbors speaking the same language, using the same dictionary as reference, and both had agreed to be literal about what they'll say. i thought it was clear that no martians were present in that scenario.
Yet you've changed the rules throughout the entire course of this thread. Within your fiction, you can make it anything you want, as you go, and you surely have. I found error in your original, that it was incomplete, now you have completed it, and still there is relativity, as you can't be sure he isn't lying to you, you have no way to know. He might be messing with your head, for all you can know. RELATIVITY!
messing with my head isn't relativity, it's stupidity. No it's only stupidity to your way of thinking, obviously not his, again relativity!
if your answer for every argument that you can't win is "he might be messing with your head", then clearly nothing in the world can ever be known or determined. if someone says "1+1=3", he might not be wrong, because he might just be "messing with me".
Hey maybe you're finally starting to get it, yes from the perspective of any particular human, RELATIVITY![/quote]
so any idiot's beliefs are equal to actual (universal) truths?[/quote] No, there is no necessary absolute truth contained in any label, other than it is that which a group decided to label something, which in fact is relative to that which another group has decided to use. That's what translation is. The guy that lied to you, and is trying to mess with your head, is a translation of him calling the sun the moon. If in fact that's the case. Yet until such time that he makes you aware of the fact you cannot know it. Relativity!
Again, context is everything regarding meaning! In your not knowing of the actual context of his utterance, lies your folly in assuming absolutism, where relativity might be the case. You're in error with your assumption of absolutism being always the case, it's not always necessarily the case at all.
What you should be doing is asking yourself why it is that you cling to absolutism so tightly. FEAR? Again it's not that I'm saying that absolutism does not exist. Both absolutism and relativism live in their own realms, one just has to know of which realm one is speaking.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
No, there is no necessary absolute truth contained in any label, other than it is that which a group decided to label something, which in fact is relative to that which another group has decided to use. That's what translation is. The guy that lied to you, and is trying to mess with your head, is a translation of him calling the sun the moon. If in fact that's the case. Yet until such time that he makes you aware of the fact you cannot know it. Relativity!
Again, context is everything regarding meaning! In your not knowing of the actual context of his utterance, lies your folly in assuming absolutism, where relativity might be the case. You're in error with your assumption of absolutism being always the case, it's not always necessarily the case at all.
What you should be doing is asking yourself why it is that you cling to absolutism so tightly. FEAR? Again it's not that I'm saying that absolutism does not exist. Both absolutism and relativism live in their own realms, one just has to know of which realm one is speaking.
yes, fear. fear of no one ever being wrong, no matter what they say, because after all, it's all relative. please don't make me quote wikipedia again.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
No, there is no necessary absolute truth contained in any label, other than it is that which a group decided to label something, which in fact is relative to that which another group has decided to use. That's what translation is. The guy that lied to you, and is trying to mess with your head, is a translation of him calling the sun the moon. If in fact that's the case. Yet until such time that he makes you aware of the fact you cannot know it. Relativity!
Again, context is everything regarding meaning! In your not knowing of the actual context of his utterance, lies your folly in assuming absolutism, where relativity might be the case. You're in error with your assumption of absolutism being always the case, it's not always necessarily the case at all.
What you should be doing is asking yourself why it is that you cling to absolutism so tightly. FEAR? Again it's not that I'm saying that absolutism does not exist. Both absolutism and relativism live in their own realms, one just has to know of which realm one is speaking.
yes, fear. fear of no one ever being wrong, no matter what they say, because after all, it's all relative. please don't make me quote wikipedia again.
Whatever this is supposed to mean?? Is this your sarcastic approximation of what I am? This instance of your meaning seems vague. Please expound, thank you!
alpha wrote:yes, fear. fear of no one ever being wrong, no matter what they say, because after all, it's all relative. please don't make me quote wikipedia again.
Whatever this is supposed to mean?? Is this your sarcastic approximation of what I am? This instance of your meaning seems vague. Please expound, thank you!
i mean that "no one is ever wrong", is the inevitable consequence of relativism.
Philosopher Hilary Putnam, among others, states that some forms of relativism make it impossible to believe one is in error. If there is no truth beyond an individual's belief that something is true, then an individual cannot hold their own beliefs to be false or mistaken. A related criticism is that relativizing truth to individuals destroys the distinction between truth and belief.
alpha wrote:yes, fear. fear of no one ever being wrong, no matter what they say, because after all, it's all relative. please don't make me quote wikipedia again.
Whatever this is supposed to mean?? Is this your sarcastic approximation of what I am? This instance of your meaning seems vague. Please expound, thank you!
i mean that "no one is ever wrong", is the inevitable consequence of relativism. And I agree with you 100%. That was my fear as well, and I didn't have to read a book to know it, and I still see that it's true. Contradiction you may presume? Not at all. Remember that I said that I believe in both absolutism and relativism. And I've even said as much as I'm about to say, previously!
I see that as to meaning amongst men, it's relative, but as to the absoluteness of the universe mens actions are absolute, their meaning of no real consequence, whatsoever. There are the two different realms that I spoke of. The universe has not written a handbook of life for all to witness, such that as to the universe, which created life, it's meaning has never been stated. In the absence of a book of life created by the universe, man can only create his own. And in so doing, he cannot create his so as to deny another of theirs, or else philosophically, he forfeits his, so says the universe in not providing a book of life. It's a logical imperative!
Philosopher Hilary Putnam, among others, states that some forms of relativism make it impossible to believe one is in error. If there is no truth beyond an individual's belief that something is true, then an individual cannot hold their own beliefs to be false or mistaken. A related criticism is that relativizing truth to individuals destroys the distinction between truth and belief.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:And I agree with you 100%. That was my fear as well, and I didn't have to read a book to know it, and I still see that it's true. Contradiction you may presume? Not at all. Remember that I said that I believe in both absolutism and relativism. And I've even said as much as I'm about to say, previously!
I see that as to meaning amongst men, it's relative, but as to the absoluteness of the universe mens actions are absolute, their meaning of no real consequence, whatsoever. There are the two different realms that I spoke of. The universe has not written a handbook of life for all to witness, such that as to the universe, which created life, it's meaning has never been stated. In the absence of a book of life created by the universe, man can only create his own. And in so doing, he cannot create his so as to deny another of theirs, or else philosophically, he forfeits his, so says the universe in not providing a book of life. It's a logical imperative!
you're basing your whole argument on a premise with which i completely disagree. the premise in question is "that the universe (or god, or...) also doesn't know the actual meaning of life, and might have an opinion as to the meaning equally valid as any of ours". my position is that while our views might be mere speculation to us, ultimately only one (one of our views, or a completely different one) can be true (according to the universe or god, or...), and therefor, logically, we should be seeking that ultimate truth. however, in order to do so, one must accept that there can only be one true truth, else he'd keep going in circles, trying to validate every nonsensical notion out there.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:And I agree with you 100%. That was my fear as well, and I didn't have to read a book to know it, and I still see that it's true. Contradiction you may presume? Not at all. Remember that I said that I believe in both absolutism and relativism. And I've even said as much as I'm about to say, previously!
I see that as to meaning amongst men, it's relative, but as to the absoluteness of the universe mens actions are absolute, their meaning of no real consequence, whatsoever. There are the two different realms that I spoke of. The universe has not written a handbook of life for all to witness, such that as to the universe, which created life, it's meaning has never been stated. In the absence of a book of life created by the universe, man can only create his own. And in so doing, he cannot create his so as to deny another of theirs, or else philosophically, he forfeits his, so says the universe in not providing a book of life. It's a logical imperative!
you're basing your whole argument on a premise with which i completely disagree. the premise in question is "that the universe (or god, or...) also doesn't know the actual meaning of life, That was never uttered by me, your absolutism has blinded you. Instead of asking my meaning, you tell me as if thats actually possible, it's not!
and might have an opinion as to the meaning equally valid as any of ours". No one currently knows it, if it shall ever be uttered, it shall be uttered simultaneously to all, as all bear witness. As the universe is responsible for every single life, all equally are it's children Never believe anyone that heard it in a dream, or sees the writing on the wall, or heard voices in their head, as all are only ever going to be equally just as selfish. Another logical imperative.
my position is that while our views might be mere speculation to us, ultimately only one (one of our views, or a completely different one) can be true (according to the universe or god, or...), And who is to say? You??? And then you woke up from your fanciful dream that you were a god. No Thank You!
and therefor, logically, we should be seeking that ultimate truth. What cave have you been living in, that's what mankind has been doing since the beginning of his time. Science, the current tool, the best tool to date. You need to wake up and smell the coffee.
however, in order to do so, one must accept that there can only be one true truth, else he'd keep going in circles, trying to validate every nonsensical notion out there. Again, you must have a sinus infection, as the coffee has been brewing for quite some time now, it's called science.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:NO one is talking about the sun being a cow EXCEPT you! That's the point!
That is why your example DOES NOT APPLY.
How many times do you want me to say it. Your 'analogy' is no analogy at all. It's a strawman caricature.
you're quite possibly the thickest person i've ever encountered.
an analogy doesn't have to apply to anyone, it's a frigging analogy, for crying out loud.
An analogy has to mirror or represent the case otherwise is is nothing more than childish stupid exaggeration.
Sadly for you, I'm not as thick as you think I am. I can see through your silly attempt at a strawman.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:You are saying that relativism is wrong because relativists say that black is white.
[Hobbes knocks Alpha on the head (a hollow sound returns)}
Relativism does not say that!
i'm saying that even if someone says "black=white", relativists would still argue that it could be true under so and so (hypothetical) circumstances.
again, i've seen walls that weren't as thick as you.
Look in the mirror to see thickness, unfortunately you just can't understand how relativism applies. Your bad, not mine! Not everything is an either/or dichotomy.
