For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Have you thought about dusk and dawn?alpha wrote:i meant, can it be both night and day on the same side of the planet, such as in the same city? that's why i said "my neighbor".SpheresOfBalance wrote:In fact it is always both daytime and nighttime on planet earth at the exact same time.
Oh how cute. The moron can cut and paste!!SpheresOfBalance wrote:As to the topic at hand:
serenity [suh-ren-i-tee]
noun
1. the state or quality of being serene, calm, or tranquil; sereneness.
So yes, that noting is a ?
@ hobbes, mb;alpha wrote:this example should leave no wiggle room for any relativist, including yourself:
if i tell my neighbor "i'm gonna say something 100% literal, based on the definitions of this dictionary in my hand, and then you say something 100% literal" based on the exact same dictionary, and he agrees... then i point to the sun in the sky (in space) and say "this is the sun, which is the only star in our solar system". he then points to the same sun and says "this is a cow that gives us milk". considering that my neighbor and i are speaking english, and accept the conventionally accepted definitions of all our words (using the exact same dictionary), surely this time, one of us (my neighbor or me) must be absolutely wrong.
I'm puzzled why you ask. As I said relative truths barely figure in matters of fact. What is your point here?alpha wrote:@ hobbes, mb;alpha wrote:this example should leave no wiggle room for any relativist, including yourself
if i tell my neighbor "i'm gonna say something 100% literal, based on the definitions of this dictionary in my hand, and then you say something 100% literal" based on the exact same dictionary, and he agrees... then i point to the sun in the sky (in space) and say "this is the sun, which is the only star in our solar system". he then points to the same sun and says "this is a cow that gives us milk". considering that my neighbor and i are speaking english, and accept the conventionally accepted definitions of all our words (using the exact same dictionary), surely this time, one of us (my neighbor or me) must be absolutely wrong.
is there really any room for opinions, views, or relative truths in this example ("unrealistic" as it maybe)?
and naturally, there are no criteria to determine what are "matters of fact", and what aren't... essentially making every statement in the world/history potentially true.Hobbes' Choice wrote:I'm puzzled why you ask. As I said relative truths barely figure in matters of fact. What is your point here?alpha wrote:@ hobbes, mb;alpha wrote:this example should leave no wiggle room for any relativist, including yourself
if i tell my neighbor "i'm gonna say something 100% literal, based on the definitions of this dictionary in my hand, and then you say something 100% literal" based on the exact same dictionary, and he agrees... then i point to the sun in the sky (in space) and say "this is the sun, which is the only star in our solar system". he then points to the same sun and says "this is a cow that gives us milk". considering that my neighbor and i are speaking english, and accept the conventionally accepted definitions of all our words (using the exact same dictionary), surely this time, one of us (my neighbor or me) must be absolutely wrong.
is there really any room for opinions, views, or relative truths in this example ("unrealistic" as it maybe)?
Please read my previous response.alpha wrote:@ hobbes, mb;alpha wrote:this example should leave no wiggle room for any relativist, including yourself
if i tell my neighbor "i'm gonna say something 100% literal, based on the definitions of this dictionary in my hand, and then you say something 100% literal" based on the exact same dictionary, and he agrees... then i point to the sun in the sky (in space) and say "this is the sun, which is the only star in our solar system". he then points to the same sun and says "this is a cow that gives us milk". considering that my neighbor and i are speaking english, and accept the conventionally accepted definitions of all our words (using the exact same dictionary), surely this time, one of us (my neighbor or me) must be absolutely wrong.
is there really any room for opinions, views, or relative truths in this example ("unrealistic" as it maybe)?
are you referring to this, mb? if you are, then i'm disappointed in you. if you're suggesting that my neighbor is right in any way, i have nothing further to say to you. if you concede that he's absolutely wrong, then no one need convince him of anything. he's simply an idiot. i'd rather convince a wall.marjoram_blues wrote:Your neighbour's view is true according to him; if it is wrong, then it is up to someone else to convince him that it is wrong by asking why he thinks so, then giving reasons why this is not the case.
I don't think scientific truths can be seen as relative - or can they ?
Another topic for another time and place...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RelativismPhilosopher 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.
Now you are just shooting yourself in the foot.alpha wrote:and naturally, there are no criteria to determine what are "matters of fact", and what aren't... essentially making every statement in the world/history potentially true.Hobbes' Choice wrote:I'm puzzled why you ask. As I said relative truths barely figure in matters of fact. What is your point here?alpha wrote:
is there really any room for opinions, views, or relative truths in this example ("unrealistic" as it maybe)?
I'm puzzled why you ask. As I said relative truths barely figure in matters of fact. What is your point here?
How about this example.
Person A, says Jo is an arsehole
Person B, Says Jo is a great guy
Person C, says Jo is a brother.
etc...
They are all right. Does this need explanation to you?
How about this. Ten people taste a sample of lemon juice. They variously rank the "sharpness" between high and low, based on their experience, most saying that for a lemon it is about average.
A scientist comes along with a machine and declares that the juice has a sharpness factor of 45.67.
Is there any grounds for declaring any of this "objective" or "subjective". Who is "right", and if you needed to know what information would you trust?
You have an agenda which is different to this thread's topic. It seems you want to prove that Relativism is false. This is an argument I'm not particularly interested in. But it does deserve its own thread.alpha wrote:are you referring to this, mb? if you are, then i'm disappointed in you. if you're suggesting that my neighbor is right in any way, i have nothing further to say to you. if you concede that he's absolutely wrong, then no one need convince him of anything. he's simply an idiot. i'd rather convince a wall.marjoram_blues wrote:Your neighbour's view is true according to him; if it is wrong, then it is up to someone else to convince him that it is wrong by asking why he thinks so, then giving reasons why this is not the case.
I don't think scientific truths can be seen as relative - or can they ?
Another topic for another time and place...
and please don't say things like "his view is true according to him". everyone's view is true according to them, but that doesn't give those views any validity whatsoever. 1+1=2 is absolutely true/factual/valid. anyone who disagrees is absolutely wrong, period. you've gotta differentiate between truth and belief.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RelativismPhilosopher 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.
actually, the issue is relevant to every thread on the planet, because whenever a relativist disapproves of something (absolutely anything), he/she need only say something to the effect of "you don't have a monopoly on truth", and somehow thinks he/she has provided compelling evidence to support his/her position.marjoram_blues wrote:You have an agenda which is different to this thread's topic. It seems you want to prove that Relativism is false. This is an argument I'm not particularly interested in. But it does deserve its own thread.
If this disappoints you, so be it...
Surely that would absolutely never ever happen on a philosophy forum where claims are absolutely always backed up by reasons and good evidence.alpha wrote:actually, the issue is relevant to every thread on the planet, because whenever a relativist disapproves of something (absolutely anything), he/she need only say something to the effect of "you don't have a monopoly on truth", and somehow thinks he/she has provided compelling evidence to support his/her position.marjoram_blues wrote:You have an agenda which is different to this thread's topic. It seems you want to prove that Relativism is false. This is an argument I'm not particularly interested in. But it does deserve its own thread.
If this disappoints you, so be it...
alpha wrote:this example should leave no wiggle room for any relativist, including yourself
No it wouldn't, Example:
You heard your neighbor say such a thing in passing, as you just arrived home to hear it. He was in fact saying it to another neighbor, so you misunderstood the context in which it was said because you arrived too late to hear it. In fact you were actually eavesdropping. In hearing him say such a thing, you decide he's nuts, because you took it literally, then proceeded to make fun of him behind his back, with all the other neighbors, until it gets back to him or the one he had been taking to in the first place. Of course they then set you straight, so all your backstabbing made you look like a fool, because it was you that spoke out of turn, and was 'absolutely' wrong as to his meaning. You had initially said that he was absolutely wrong and that you were absolutely right. There is one example of relativism!
This has been an example of where relativism was found out and made absolute, but that's not always the case as to any particular humans meaning. Notice that the definition I provided, compliments of wikipedia, speaks of language and culture as being a snag in terms of absolutism, that relativism can only be the case, surely initially, until meaning is translated. There is a German word, someone please remind me of what it is, that is said to be untranslatable. Of course that could be the Germans just being obstinate, as they control that meaning. Indicative of their past performance? We non-Germans may never know.
Theories are an example of relativism until such time that they are considered laws, and even then they can be found out to be totally bogus, HERE IT GOES, 'relative' to a newer, clearer understanding.
So I guess that you believe Einsteins' Theory of Relativity, is in fact absolute. Reference books still to this day call it a theory, and not a law. The same, of course, goes for his Special Theory of Relativity. Are you familiar with his theory of relativity? Because he shows that relativism exists.
What is a nanosecond, second, minute, hour, day, month, year? Are they absolute? No! They are relative to this planet and solar system, crap the only one of those that is even somewhat consistent with this solar systems particular periodicities is the year, all the others are actually arbitrary and 'relative' to the wants of particular men throughout history, and they've changed. An actual month is almost exactly 28 days, womens period, ocean tide cycles, which makes a year have 13 months, but for the 'relative' fear of that number, by a Roman Caesar, wasn't it Augustus? So we have 12 and all this BS of 30,31, and sometimes 28/29, because of the relative fear of some dead dumb shit! 24 hour days and it's divisions are completely arbitrary in terms of celestial periodicities, relative to some humans wants.
Try telling an alien, that you've just met in deep space, any of those times, without explaining your solar systems periodicities, let alone those that are relative to a mans desires. He'll start to think you're nuts. Tell him how far you've traveled, in a universe devoid of all stars, thus all light. How far did you travel 'relative' to light? Well you wouldn't know would you? You'd be lost without relativity! No dimensions would be measurable without relativity. No a foot is not absolute, I wear a 10 how about you?
if i tell my neighbor "i'm gonna say something 100% literal, based on the definitions of this dictionary in my hand, and then you say something 100% literal" based on the exact same dictionary, and he agrees... then i point to the sun in the sky (in space) and say "this is the sun, which is the only star in our solar system". he then points to the same sun and says "this is a cow that gives us milk". considering that my neighbor and i are speaking english, and accept the conventionally accepted definitions of all our words (using the exact same dictionary), surely this time, one of us (my neighbor or me) must be absolutely wrong.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Oh how cute. The moron can cut and paste!!SpheresOfBalance wrote:As to the topic at hand:
serenity [suh-ren-i-tee]
noun
1. the state or quality of being serene, calm, or tranquil; sereneness.
So yes, that noting is a ?
Sadly you do not seem very keen to engage, even in that discussion either.alpha wrote:actually, the issue is relevant to every thread on the planet,marjoram_blues wrote:You have an agenda which is different to this thread's topic. It seems you want to prove that Relativism is false. This is an argument I'm not particularly interested in. But it does deserve its own thread.
If this disappoints you, so be it...
I'm puzzled why you ask. As I said relative truths barely figure in matters of fact. What is your point here?
How about this example.
Person A, says Jo is an arsehole
Person B, Says Jo is a great guy
Person C, says Jo is a brother.
etc...
They are all right. Does this need explanation to you?
How about this. Ten people taste a sample of lemon juice. They variously rank the "sharpness" between high and low, based on their experience, most saying that for a lemon it is about average.
A scientist comes along with a machine and declares that the juice has a sharpness factor of 45.67.
Is there any grounds for declaring any of this "objective" or "subjective". Who is "right", and if you needed to know what information would you trust?
OK, dick cheese, you pathetic little prÃck, GOOD ONE! Smack those absolutest's it the kisser with solid examples of relativity!Hobbes' Choice wrote:I'm puzzled why you ask. As I said relative truths barely figure in matters of fact. What is your point here?alpha wrote:@ hobbes, mb;alpha wrote:this example should leave no wiggle room for any relativist, including yourself
if i tell my neighbor "i'm gonna say something 100% literal, based on the definitions of this dictionary in my hand, and then you say something 100% literal" based on the exact same dictionary, and he agrees... then i point to the sun in the sky (in space) and say "this is the sun, which is the only star in our solar system". he then points to the same sun and says "this is a cow that gives us milk". considering that my neighbor and i are speaking english, and accept the conventionally accepted definitions of all our words (using the exact same dictionary), surely this time, one of us (my neighbor or me) must be absolutely wrong.
is there really any room for opinions, views, or relative truths in this example ("unrealistic" as it maybe)?
How about this example.
Person A, says Jo is an arsehole
Person B, Says Jo is a great guy
Person C, says Jo is a brother.
etc...
They are all right. Does this need explanation to you?
How about this. Ten people taste a sample of lemon juice. They variously rank the "sharpness" between high and low, based on their experience, most saying that for a lemon it is about average.
A scientist comes along with a machine and declares that the juice has a sharpness factor of 45.67.
Is there any grounds for declaring any of this "objective" or "subjective". Who is "right", and if you needed to know what information would you trust?