Philosophy Now Forum

alpha wrote:@ spheres;

why do you keep posting examples of relative 'opinions', 'views' etc.? i can create more examples than you can imagine, myself. my whole point was proving that there were scenarios where all that 'grey' area in which you try to push everything in, simply doesn't exist, but you keep answering questions that i haven't asked. what about my question? is there any wiggle room in the example i used?
But that's the whole point, ones meanings can often be just as opinions, views, etc, can be. Your original example was shot to hell and back, you even went so far as to tell me to forget about it, remember. That I should only pay attention to your second one, then I destroyed that one. Look, as I've said, I'm not against either absolutism or relativism. There is a place for both, dependent upon the context in which they are used.

@hobbes;

your example simply demonstrates that people could have different opinions and tastes, which i already know. i don't live on mars. different tastes is not important to me, my problem is "multiple truths" where it's not simply a matter of taste, such as 1+1=2.
As to this one, there's probably no one on that planet, that would disagree with you, the ignorant of what that 'means' should not be included, until such time that you make it clear what it is that it means.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

alpha wrote:your example simply demonstrates that people could have different opinions and tastes, which i already know. i don't live on mars. different tastes is not important to me, my problem is "multiple truths" where it's not simply a matter of taste, such as 1+1=2.
As to this one, there's probably no one on that planet, that would disagree with you, the ignorant of what that 'means' should not be included, until such time that you make it clear what it is that it means.

alpha wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

alpha wrote:your example simply demonstrates that people could have different opinions and tastes, which i already know. i don't live on mars. different tastes is not important to me, my problem is "multiple truths" where it's not simply a matter of taste, such as 1+1=2.
As to this one, there's probably no one on that planet, that would disagree with you, the ignorant of what that 'means' should not be included, until such time that you make it clear what it is that it means.

i'm afraid there are plenty of people on the planet who'd at least dispute the absoluteness of '2' being the answer. i've even "debated" with such individuals. one was saying that we accept 1+1=2 until some scientist proves otherwise. as if this is subject to scientific experiments.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

alpha wrote:i'm afraid there are plenty of people on the planet who'd at least dispute the absoluteness of '2' being the answer. i've even "debated" with such individuals. one was saying that we accept 1+1=2 until some scientist proves otherwise. as if this is subject to scientific experiments.

And you believed he really meant it, and wasn't just being contrary for it's sake alone???

He was being contrary for it's sake alone. I'm sure even he would understand if you have him two apples then took one away! Unless of course he hated apples.

alpha wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

alpha wrote:i'm afraid there are plenty of people on the planet who'd at least dispute the absoluteness of '2' being the answer. i've even "debated" with such individuals. one was saying that we accept 1+1=2 until some scientist proves otherwise. as if this is subject to scientific experiments.

And you believed he really meant it, and wasn't just being contrary for it's sake alone???

He was being contrary for it's sake alone. I'm sure even he would understand if you have him two apples then took one away! Unless of course he hated apples.

she (i'm certain, lol) wasn't being contrary. even though relativists are notoriously contrary (no offense).

alpha wrote:
@hobbes;

your example simply demonstrates that people could have different opinions and tastes, which i already know. i don't live on mars. different tastes are not important to me, my problem is "multiple truths" where it's not simply a matter of taste, such as 1+1=2.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:But 1+1=2 says nothing. The answer is coded in the meaning. It's just a model. I don't think anyone is arguing against this sort of analytic truth.
you'd be surprised how many people in the world argue against this and every other truth, analytic or otherwise.

In reality there are no integers in nature.

But the point about me repeating my example was for you to actually respond to it. It did not contain an analytic truth so your example does not apply to what I was saying.
tastes and preferences are generally accepted as subjective things, whereas calling the 'sun' a 'cow' -for instance- by an english speaking person, isn't. it would be a false statement, unless the person was using code words, or trying to invent a new language.

alpha wrote:i could fill entire libraries discussing all the crap i've been through (and continue to go through), but it wouldn't change anything.

alpha wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:But 1+1=2 says nothing. The answer is coded in the meaning. It's just a model. I don't think anyone is arguing against this sort of analytic truth.
you'd be surprised how many people in the world argue against this and every other truth, analytic or otherwise.

In reality there are no integers in nature.

But the point about me repeating my example was for you to actually respond to it. It did not contain an analytic truth so your example does not apply to what I was saying.
tastes and preferences are generally accepted as subjective things, whereas calling the 'sun' a 'cow' -for instance- by an english speaking person, isn't. it would be a false statement, unless the person was using code words, or trying to invent a new language.

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: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!

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.

alpha wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:But 1+1=2 says nothing. The answer is coded in the meaning. It's just a model. I don't think anyone is arguing against this sort of analytic truth.
you'd be surprised how many people in the world argue against this and every other truth, analytic or otherwise.

In reality there are no integers in nature.

But the point about me repeating my example was for you to actually respond to it. It did not contain an analytic truth so your example does not apply to what I was saying.
tastes and preferences are generally accepted as subjective things, whereas calling the 'sun' a 'cow' -for instance- by an english speaking person, isn't. it would be a false statement, unless the person was using code words, or trying to invent a new language.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

alpha wrote:

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!

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!