Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote:

Greta wrote:You are blatantly keen on "absolute truth".

Sure. But a totally irrelevant observation. Whether or not I'm "keen" on it will not change the facts either way.

No, but it does change the "facts" as according to you. Do you remain in denial about this?

Immanuel Can wrote:

You obviously have started with the premise that middle eastern people 2,000 years ago are the only ones who ever understood reality and thus their claims are "absolute truth".

This is also a terrible argument. Ad hominem, in the first place, and then it amounts to, "If people have found something true for 2,000 years, it cannot be true." Really????

That's not an argument. It is simply an objective observation inferred from the obvious. An argument would be a claim as to the truth or otherwise of the ancient myths to which you and others subscribe.

Based on probabilities, it seems unlikely that the mythology of the middle east 2,000 years ago would be any more "true" than other myths and findings of other times and places just because that's the view of prevailing religion where you were born. It all seems hugely solipsistic.

Immanuel Can wrote:

From there, you work backwards trying to prove that truth claim.

Feel free to show me where I did that. I believe you won't find it. Fallacy of presumption, then.

This is the "homework game", where you set the opponent so many tasks that they fade through fatigue. I will not do work for you, as you have done none for me. Whatever, many of your posts on this thread involve you attempting to provide a logical proof for your already-assumed premise. Everyone here has noticed it.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Of course everything is relative.

Then you would have to realize that your "of course" is unjustifiable, since your statement is only relatively true. If follows you must hold it sometimes to be untrue. So there's no "of course" about it, no reason for anyone operating logically even to accept it; in fact, the only "of course" would go the other way.

That makes no sense. The world does not consist of "truths" and "relativities". "Truth" is a madly subjective concept, which is why every debate it involves is rubbish. "Morality", "consciousness" and "life" are other wildly ambiguous and subjective concepts whose failure to be captured by language has resulted in much "philosopher nonsense" that truns people off the field.

My care as to whether absolute truth exists? Nil. I just object to the mangled logic you use to "prove" your pre-decided theistic beliefs, no offence. As I noted before - again not addressed by you - even if the universe or reality is all one thing with no environment with which it can be relative, so what? It's not important.

I am fascinated by your need to believe in an absolute truth. Why?

Harbal wrote:

bobevenson wrote: I'm convinced you really do have a little white nighty![/size][/b]

Yes, I'm still living in hope that I'll come across somebody suitable to put in it. What size are you, by the way, bob?

I don't think Bob would pass the physical, but I could be wrong. I believe the original phrase was "White Knighty", do you happen to be friends with one of those? If so, I would recomend that you send him on a mission to neutralize Bob, smash his computer would be one way.

Greta wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

Greta wrote:You are blatantly keen on "absolute truth".

Sure. But a totally irrelevant observation. Whether or not I'm "keen" on it will not change the facts either way.

No, but it does change the "facts" as according to you. Do you remain in denial about this?

\
Absolutely. It's a silly suggestion.

Immanuel Can wrote:

You obviously have started with the premise that middle eastern people 2,000 years ago are the only ones who ever understood reality and thus their claims are "absolute truth".

This is also a terrible argument. Ad hominem, in the first place, and then it amounts to, "If people have found something true for 2,000 years, it cannot be true." Really????

That's not an argument. It is simply an objective observation inferred from the obvious. An argument would be a claim as to the truth or otherwise of the ancient myths to which you and others subscribe.

So... old = false, in your world?

Immanuel Can wrote:

From there, you work backwards trying to prove that truth claim.

Feel free to show me where I did that. I believe you won't find it. Fallacy of presumption, then.

This is the "homework game", where you set the opponent so many tasks that they fade through fatigue. I will not do work for you, as you have done none for me. Whatever, many of your posts on this thread involve you attempting to provide a logical proof for your already-assumed premise. Everyone here has noticed it.

Ah. So, no evidence it's so...just a fallacy of presumption. Gottit.

"Truth" is a madly subjective concept,..

Is that statement also "madly subjective" and not objectively true? It would have to be, if you keep faith with your own assertion there. And if you don't, then you've denied your own claim.

...even if the universe or reality is all one thing with no environment with which it can be relative, so what? It's not important.

Interesting. Everybody else seems to think it very important.

Are you convinced that medicine is "relative"? How about engineering..."relative" too? Basic science? Mathematics? Cosmology? Navigation? Flight? I would say that all of these have life-preserving truths in them...but you insist they're all "relative"???? Then I suggest that nobody who believed those were simply relative would be alive long.

In fact, the obvious truth from your response is that even you seem to think objective truth is important. For when you argue that I'm ... what is it? Biased? Deluded? Wrong, in some way? Well, do you assert that as an objective fact? Because if it's not, then all you're really saying is, "Relative to my subjective view, IC is wrong, biased and deluded." But since that's only true relative to your subjective view, you can't suppose anyone else needs to take that claim seriously...after all, it, like every other fact, must be only true relative to your subjective view....and hence, false from other relative viewpoints.

Relativism is just such self-refuting stuff. It's simply not coherent, for it cannot keep faith even with its own terms. It needs to be absolute in order to be true, but can only ever be relative...and thus, sometimes or often untrue itself.

But I'm certain you can see that now. I've certainly pointed it out enough. So let me now reverse your question: given that you've seen it refuted even on its own terms, and that several times, why are you persistently addicted to Relativism?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Greta wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: Sure. But a totally irrelevant observation. Whether or not I'm "keen" on it will not change the facts either way.

No, but it does change the "facts" as according to you. Do you remain in denial about this?

Absolutely. It's a silly suggestion.

I didn't need your assurance. It's obvious that you're in denial, as your superstitious faith demands.

Immanuel Can wrote:

"Truth" is a madly subjective concept,..

Is that statement also "madly subjective" and not objectively true? It would have to be, if you keep faith with your own assertion there. And if you don't, then you've denied your own claim.

I'm just about to finish this up. Your word games are annoyingly meaningless.

Immanuel Can wrote:

...even if the universe or reality is all one thing with no environment with which it can be relative, so what? It's not important.

Interesting. Everybody else seems to think it very important.

Are you convinced that medicine is "relative"?
YES
How about engineering..."relative" too?
YES
Basic science?
YES
Mathematics?
YES
Cosmology? YES
Navigation? YES
Flight? YES
I would say that all of these have life-preserving truths in them...but you insist they're all "relative"???? Then I suggest
that nobody who believed those were simply relative would be alive long.

Argument from ignorance. Relativity does not equal lack of reality, since reality as we know it is entirely relative.

If maths contained no relativities this is how we would count:

1

That's it. There can be no other numbers or a relativity is created. That's what maths is - comparisons, ratios.

Immanuel Can wrote:Relativism is just such self-refuting stuff. It's simply not coherent, for it cannot keep faith even with its own terms. It needs to be absolute in order to be true, but can only ever be relative...and thus, sometimes or often untrue itself.

The claim that reality is relative is relatively true, ie. dependent on subjectivities - it is completely consistent. You are wrong for the umpteenth time. It's like slapping flies.

Meanwhile, your claims that reality is absolute means nothing. It's just another philosopher word game. Obviously, if this universe emerged from a quantum foam, one could say it is a particular entity without a discernible or known environment, in which case it could be said to be an absolute entity. Now our (somewhat) known reality has a label of "absolute". So what? It's meaningless, except to people more fixated on words than physical reality.

Greta wrote: I'm just about to finish this up. Your word games are annoyingly meaningless.

There's a difference between "word games" and conceptual analysis. In conceptual-analytic philosophy, you try to understand the implications of the concepts people are utilizing. Conceptual analysis is what we are doing here.

Your concept was "Relativism." We looked at what that implies, and we found it irrational. This was obvious because it could not even meet the challenge that Relativism itself imposes...namely that all truth must be said to be "relative." Analytically, then, Relativism is an incoherent concept. QED.

Argument from ignorance.

I'm afraid you're using the wrong label. The argumentum ad ignorantiam goes, "People don't know (i.e. are ignorant of) not-X, therefore X is true." That's not an argument you'll find in what I said at all.

Relativity does not equal lack of reality, since reality as we know it is entirely relative.

Your statement, then, is relatively true, but relatively false, according to your own words.

The claim that reality is relative is relatively true, ie. dependent on subjectivities - it is completely consistent.

Not so, if by "claim" you mean "objectively true." Which seems to me the only thing you COULD mean, if you expect to be advancing a claim there. Otherwise, you're just stating a taste or perspective, and why should anyone be concerned to share your taste or perspective if it's not objectively true?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Greta wrote: I'm just about to finish this up. Your word games are annoyingly meaningless.

There's a difference between "word games" and conceptual analysis.

excuse me for butting in but I'd just like to point out that your conceptual analysis is also annoying.

The argumentum ad ignorantiam goes,

Could I also point out that the argumentum ad ignorantiam objection is usually only invoked when the complainant finds himself in the position of constantium wankium ad nauseum.

Immanuel Can wrote:Conceptual analysis is what we are doing here.

In your case "conceptual analysis" yields nothing more than conceptual paralysis which reminds me of a spider under the influence of caffeine.

What a mess!

Dubious wrote:..."conceptual analysis" yields nothing more than conceptual paralysis...

In this case, we're far from "paralyzed." We know exactly what's the situation: Relativism is irrational. So we can move forward quite confidently in the knowledge it's not going to be the case: some things actually will turn out to be absolutely true. How can we be "paralyzed" when we're so clear in our results?

Would that all philosophical quandaries were so unequivocal in result!

Now, that you may not like that conclusion...I can't help you with that. But that we know it's the case, and anyone who thinks about it for a few minutes can see it.

Relativism simply cannot be absolutely true.

Immanuel Can wrote: But that we know it's the case,

I know you hold yourself in very high regard, Immanuel, but I think using the royal "we" is pushing it a bit.

Immanuel Can wrote:We know exactly what's the situation...

We, excluding me, may know exactly what's the situation! I was never as certain about any of my situational affinities. ANYTHING can be discussed philosophically in any manner of ways, even absolutes, which makes Relativism especially applicable to any philosophic discussion in which absolutely NOTHING can be ABSOLUTELY ascertained.

...but please continue your debate with Greta. I only meant to interpose my dull and inarticulate writing as a footnote.

Dubious wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:Conceptual analysis is what we are doing here.

In your case "conceptual analysis" yields nothing more than conceptual paralysis which reminds me of a spider under the influence of caffeine.

What a mess!

Maybe that’s the spider equivalent of creative genius. You know, kind of like Salvador Dali, or Picasso.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
If God is so merciful, then why did Jesus have to be sacrificed?

How can Jesus be considered as being a sacrifice from God’s perspective when God knew beyond any doubt that Jesus can never die and would simply return to his higher and eternal form in heaven?

In other words, what exactly was God “sacrificing” in the literal sense of that word?
_______

Immanuel Can wrote:

Dubious wrote:..."conceptual analysis" yields nothing more than conceptual paralysis...

In this case, we're far from "paralyzed." We know exactly what's the situation: Relativism is irrational. So we can move forward quite confidently in the knowledge it's not going to be the case: some things actually will turn out to be absolutely true.

Immanuel, earlier you provided a list of so-called absolute things and yet each can be shown to be unmistakably relative in nature (and thus subject to relativity).

That leaves only one possible absolute entity - everything put together. That leaves the below issues put to on his thread that have not been satisfactorily addressed:

My care as to whether absolute truth exists? Nil. I just object to the mangled logic you use to "prove" your pre-decided theistic beliefs, no offence. As I noted before - again not addressed by you - even if the universe or reality is all one thing with no environment with which it can be relative, so what? It's not important.

I am fascinated by your need to believe in an absolute truth. Why?

Greta wrote:...earlier you provided a list of so-called absolute things and yet each can be shown to be unmistakably relative in nature (and thus subject to relativity)

If they can be "shown to be unmistakably relative," please do so now.

For example, medicine: I can't drink a whole lot of arsenic without dying...can you?
Engineering: if I build a bridge badly, it will fall; but you say it won't, in your world?
Mathematics: in my world, "2" is equivalent to .. or II: but in your world it's different? Please explain.

My care as to whether absolute truth exists? Nil.

Well, I fear that perhaps you won't live long. You'll probably try walking into traffic with the assumption that being hit by cars is a subjective state of mind.

I am fascinated by your need to believe in an absolute truth. Why?

Ask scientists, logicians, and any honest, ordinary person who thinks reality is good and lies are bad. They all have the same obsession.

It's the Relativists that stand in need of explaining: for why should one prefer to believe that which is demonstrably false?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Greta wrote:...earlier you provided a list of so-called absolute things and yet each can be shown to be unmistakably relative in nature (and thus subject to relativity)

If they can be "shown to be unmistakably relative," please do so now.

For example, medicine: I can't drink a whole lot of arsenic without dying...can you?
Engineering: if I build a bridge badly, it will fall; but you say it won't, in your world?
Mathematics: in my world, "2" is equivalent to .. or II: but in your world it's different? Please explain.

My care as to whether absolute truth exists? Nil.

Well, I fear that perhaps you won't live long. You'll probably try walking into traffic with the assumption that being hit by cars is a subjective state of mind.

I am fascinated by your need to believe in an absolute truth. Why?

Ask scientists, logicians, and any honest, ordinary person who thinks reality is good and lies are bad. They all have the same obsession.

It's the Relativists that stand in need of explaining: for why should one prefer to believe that which is demonstrably false?

You have convinced yourself that arsenic, traffic lights and mathematics are absolute truths in a spectacular demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Newbie errors.

Immanuel Can wrote:

It's the Relativists that stand in need of explaining: for why should one prefer to believe that which is demonstrably false?

This everyday world is a relative world. Every thing in the world relates to time and/or space. If one event was not relatively different from another event they would be the same event. If Belinda was not relatively different from Immanuel Can, they would be the same person. If Belinda's right hand was not relatively different from Belinda's left hand they would be the same hand.

Eternity however is absolute not relative. Possibly there are absolute (eternal) truths, and possibly men can access some absolute(eternal) truth from time to time.