Philosophy Now Forum

Belinda wrote: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.

The only thing that is absolutely true is that there is bunch of phenomena that give the appearance of human beings, stumbling around on a big, wet rock, trying to make sense of all the stuff they see and hear. There are many different ways that people account for their experiences, some more successful than others, but all relative to their own intuition and experience. Mr Can simply doesn't understand that 'relative' applies only to people's interpretations, and not, as he insists, to the experiences and intuitions themselves.

uwot wrote:

The only thing that is absolutely true is that there is bunch of phenomena that give the appearance of human beings, stumbling around on a big, wet rock, trying to make sense of all the stuff they see and hear. There are many different ways that people account for their experiences,

They aren't absolutely true , they are phenomena. It's true that human beings appear to us more or less as you say they do, however this fact doesn't make the phenomena absolutely true , it makes the phenomena true relative to who is perceiving them. It's true that most of us perceive them but it's possible that some people don't perceive other human beings.

The historical Jesus was a temporary phenomenon like you or I. The Christ of faith is eternally true for those who believe that the Christ of faith is the eternal Son of the eternal God.

Hi Belinda. It's absolutely fabulous to have to join in, relatively speaking.

Does eternity only exist in a relative sense or is it a theoretical construct based on our observations as small things within very much larger things?

Belinda wrote: 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.

This is a misunderstanding of what Relativism is.

Belinda wrote: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.

Two things are identical if there is no differentiation of boundary between the two things, and, if all their qualities, elements, and aspects are identical.

- The differentiation of boundary need not be part of either thing.

Two things cannot occupy the same time/space coordinate. This boundary is not part of either thing, yet it separates the two things that are otherwise identical, until faith in the past takes over as the basis for differentiation of aspects defining each thing.

- All aspects of two things can be identical to the limits of sensory perception, even when sensory perception is aided by measuring devices that serve as a standardized basis for comparison.

Break out the calipers. This is the basis of manufacturing interchangeable parts for machines. The manufactured parts are identical. Those that are not identical, are tossed into the scrap heap.

- So, aspects of things can be identical to the limits of sensory perception. After that, that they are not identical can only be inferred.

For instance, we infer that the molecular count of each thing will vary, making the two things non-identical.

However, this inference is faith-based. The faith is in the assumption that past knowledge of physics and chemistry will always apply to future events. Make that assumption, and you're living in imagination based on the known, which is based on your limitations of perception and comprehension. In other words, you're living in your head, which is smaller than reality.

The assumption that the past of chemical reactions will continue as the future is false, for this reason. Not only does the possibility of an unknown catalyst exist, we assume that the law of physics will never change based on past knowledge. We assume that the world we know on the other side of that door will not change. However, some day or night this will be untrue. As far as we know, this is as inviolate as the time/space thingy, based on what folks now know about science.

Belinda wrote:uwot wrote:

The only thing that is absolutely true is that there is bunch of phenomena that give the appearance of human beings, stumbling around on a big, wet rock, trying to make sense of all the stuff they see and hear. There are many different ways that people account for their experiences,

They aren't absolutely true , they are phenomena.

The thing that is absolutely true, is that there are phenomena. It is the one thing we know with absolute logically flawless and empirically irrefutable certainty: there are sights, sounds, smells, tastes, feelings, ideas and as Descartes pointed out, doubts. You cannot perceive, much less express any idea without it being necessarily true that there are ideas. It is logical nonsense to say 'I don't exist.' It is conceivable that the 'I' referred to is just some fleeting wisp of self awareness, but 'I don't exist' is self refuting; it cannot be perceived or thought if there is no perception or thought.

Belinda wrote:It's true that human beings appear to us more or less as you say they do, however this fact doesn't make the phenomena absolutely true , it makes the phenomena true relative to who is perceiving them. It's true that most of us perceive them but it's possible that some people don't perceive other human beings.

Perhaps. Mr Can likes to give the impression that he doesn't perceive myself and a few other characters, but we all know he does, because he clearly learns from us, and occasionally can't resist responding, albeit indirectly. But I digress.
Again, it is not the facts which are relative, it is the stories we make up to account for them. Take creation myths. All cultures exist on the same planet, under the same Sun and have the same sensory faculties. The facts are the same for everyone, but the range of stories that people tell about where the world came from, what it is made of, how it works and in many cases who and how we should worship for it, is testament to human creativity. The facts are the facts. The stories, including things like general relativity, quantum field theory, string theory, are relative to the cultures that hold them.

Belinda wrote:The historical Jesus was a temporary phenomenon like you or I. The Christ of faith is eternally true for those who believe that the Christ of faith is the eternal Son of the eternal God.

Well, that there was an 'historical Jesus' is the interpretation that you take to be true, in the light of your own personal experience. It may, in fact, be true, but it is not logically watertight, in the way that 'I exist' is.

uwot wrote: The stories, including things like general relativity, quantum field theory, string theory, are relative to the cultures that hold them.

Belinda wrote:The historical Jesus was a temporary phenomenon like you or I. The Christ of faith is eternally true for those who believe that the Christ of faith is the eternal Son of the eternal God.

Well, that there was an 'historical Jesus' is the interpretation that you take to be true, in the light of your own personal experience. It may, in fact, be true, but it is not logically watertight, in the way that 'I exist' is.

What many here seem to not understand is that the crucifixion was a drama played out for the people of the time, to teach a message that they could then pass on to their decedents. The play was not meant for the people of this time, witness everyone trying to tear it apart, people criticize the drama, but miss the message.

thedoc wrote:What many here seem to not understand is that the crucifixion was a drama played out for the people of the time, to teach a message that they could then pass on to their decedents.

Depends what you mean by 'drama' and 'played out'. What we have is a book in which different authors claim to be witnesses to the same events. Some people choose to believe that the stories are true, and that the witnesses are reliable; others don't.

thedoc wrote:The play was not meant for the people of this time, witness everyone trying to tear it apart...

The story isn't the issue, what other people believe is entirely their business. The problem is that some people believe that what they believe entitles them to demand that other people behave in a certain way.

thedoc wrote:...people criticize the drama, but miss the message.

That depends on how you interpret the 'message'. The idea that newborn babies are guilty of original sin is, in my view, disgusting. The idea that we should ask god to "forgive us our trespasses" rather than the people we have trespassed against, is narcissistic and cowardly, because the only interest it serves is that of the trespasser, who get away without having to confront the person they actually hurt. The message is certainly not all bad, but some of it is just crap.

thedoc wrote:people criticize the drama, but miss the message.

What was/is the message?

thedoc wrote:The play was not meant for the people of this time,

Normally, I find myself agreeing with you. But here I must beg to differ.

...witness everyone trying to tear it apart, people criticize the drama, but miss the message.

The same happened back in ancient times. It's a message that human beings have both embraced and resisted since it's very inception, depending on where their own hearts were.

In fact, that's what it most brilliantly illuminates, whether then or today.

Immanuel Can wrote:It's a message that human beings have both embraced and resisted since it's very inception,

It's hard to do either when you don't know what the message is.

Immanuel Can wrote:

thedoc wrote:The play was not meant for the people of this time,

Normally, I find myself agreeing with you. But here I must beg to differ.

...witness everyone trying to tear it apart, people criticize the drama, but miss the message.

The same happened back in ancient times. It's a message that human beings have both embraced and resisted since it's very inception, depending on where their own hearts were.

In fact, that's what it most brilliantly illuminates, whether then or today.

Perhaps I should elaborate, I was referring to the details of the play not the message. I would think that people of North America and Europe would respond to different details. The message would be the same.

There will always be some who prefer temporal power over the rewards of believing in God, humility and service to others.

thedoc wrote: I was referring to the details of the play not the message.

Will someone tell me what the bloody message is?

Harbal wrote:

thedoc wrote: I was referring to the details of the play not the message.

Will someone tell me what the bloody message is?

God is offering forgiveness for your sins, If you don't believe you have any sins, then you are very good or very delusional, I would suspect the latter, in which case you will not see the message.

thedoc wrote: God is offering forgiveness for your sins, If you don't believe you have any sins, then you are very good or very delusional, I would suspect the latter, in which case you will not see the message.

If by "sins" you mean acts that hurt other people then, yes, there have been some. Any forgiveness would have to come from the people I've wronged, and even then, that in itself wouldn't stop me from feeling guilty. I don't see how forgiveness can be meaningful unless it comes from the person you've hurt.