The distinction between map and terrain had nothing to do with absolutes.
And your statement proposes an absolute. The idea that there are no absolutes IS an absolute itself.
My statement does not propose an absolute. Rather, you merely think that it does.
You are interpreting my statement as “the absolute is that there are no absolutes”.
This is clearly a contradiction but it is not what I am saying.
I can certainly speak English well enough to know that such actually IS what you have said. If you want to say something different than that absolute declaration, choose other words and rephrase.
If you are interested in understanding what the other is saying, then you should make an effort to understand what the other is saying. If you misunderstand, that is fine. All you have to do is to admit that you misunderstood and then make another attempt to understand. Perhaps by asking questions.
On the other hand, if you are not interested in understanding what the other is saying, or if you have lost interest in trying to understand what the other is saying, then you should stop trying to understand by accepting that you do not understand and then leave.
The worst thing you can do is to become defensive of your failure to understand me by justifying yourself on the ground that I wasn’t clear enough.
It does not matter what I say but what I mean. And I never meant that my proposition is absolutely true.
What does it mean that a proposition is absolutely true? It means that it has one-to-one correspondence with reality.
My proposition does not. I never claimed that it does.
Perhaps I should have expressed myself using a sentence such as “in my opinion, there are no absolutes”. But I think this is redundant precisely because I think there are no absolutes.
I am no Biguous. I have no need to emphasize over and over again that my statements are merely a reflection of my opinions. Precisely because I don’t think there is such a thing as an absolute distinction between opinions and truths (unlike him, who does think there is such a distinction, which reveals that he’s yet another absolutist.)
I have understood your statements to be proper absolute assertions. You say that you did not intend an absolute assertion or declaration. I have asked that you please state what it is that you did mean.
I suspect that you will find it difficult to make any statement without it being an absolute declaration.
Do you know what you mean when you, yourself, use the word “circle”? I suspect that you do. And when you say that you know for certain what you meant to say, you will be stating an absolute certainty. Are you going to tell us that you are uncertain of what you mean when you say “circle” or any of the statements that you make? Aren’t you absolutely certain of your own intended meaning (whether anyone else agrees or not)?
My absolute declaration is that there are absolutes all around. I can say that and remain consistent. But one cannot say the opposite and be consistent, because every assertion is an absolute declaration, even if the declaration is merely a statement of one’s personal opinion. It is still an absolute declaration - “My opinion is…”.
Are you going to say that it is merely your opinion of your intent? And then that statement is merely your opinion that it was your opinion of your intent. And that statement is merely your opinion that it was your opinion that it was your opinion of your intent … ad infinitum?
That would be you digging yourself into Biguous’ or Abstract’s grave of endless self doubt.
I know for certain that there is something that you know for certain (your own intent). And “certain” means “absolute”.
What do you mean when you say that my assertion that there are no absolutes is in itself an absolute?
There are two ways I can interpret it.
- that my proposition is absolutely true
- that I am claiming that my proposition is absolutely true
What does it mean that my proposition is absolutely true? It means that my proposition has one-to-one correspondence with reality.
If what you mean is (1) then what you’re saying is that my proposition has one-to-one correspondence with reality. This would be a problem because it would contradict itself. But why do you think that my proposition is absolutely true? Does making a claim automatically turns it into an absolutely accurate description of reality?
If what you mean is (2) then what you’re saying is that I am saying, explicitly or implicitly, that my proposition has one-to-one correspondence with reality. Even though my proposition explicitly claims that no proposition can have one-to-one correspondence with reality.
So what are you saying?
If truth is just an opinion, then you are not saying anything valuable to me.
Why should I care about your opinions?
The only reason I would care, is to use your opinions to manipulate you. Therefore, you should keep your opinions to yourself so that you are less vulnerable.
You are confusing relative absolutes (which are merely metaphorical absolutes which means they are not real) with absolute absolutes (which are literal absolutes and precisely for this reason not real.)
Confidence is not contingent upon the existence of absolutes. There is no need for absolute certainty – understood in the absolute, literal, sense rather than in the relative, metaphorical, sense – in order to be confident.
Confidence – true confidence – is generated by keeping different movements apart. By refusing to conflate them. On intellectual level, this means keeping different concepts apart instead of conflating them (by say reducing them to a single, central, absolute concept such as God.)
That would be true if we were absolutely different. But we are not. So my opinions, even though they are merely opinions, can be of use to you.
But you can’t even establish any similarities since even statements about similarities would only be your opinions.
And you also wrote this:
I can never know what you mean because in order to communicate what you mean, you are forced to “say it” and that may be different from what you actually mean. I can never know when your meanings and your expressions are in sync. Therefore, your meanings are inaccessible to me.
Words have an effect. This is why people care. Whether they want it or not. The more similar people are, the more effective the words. There is no need to establish similarity before one can decide to care or not to care. It’s automatic.
Sure. People care about opinions, bullshit and lies. People are influenced by opinions, bullshit and lies.
But there is a reason why truth is pursued, why it is important and why it is more valuable than opinions, bullshit and lies.
There are better and worse opinions.
A lie is a standalone with no mirroring.
If the memory is erased truth cannot be differentiated by lie.
Reality with no memory…what is that?
I’m merely exposing what I construe to be the limitations of the objectivist mind. You and James are heatedly exchanging scholastic analyses of…of what exactly?
Of words that are intent only on defining and defending other words. Maps and terrains? That’s as close as you ever get to actual human interaction. To exploring “absolutism” and “relativism” out in a particular world.
As long as you assume that the meaning that you give to the words in the “analysis” is the one and only correct meaning, those that demur are doomed.
Indeed, I challenge anyone to read the OP and to note the extent to which it is relevant to their own lives. How does it pertain to that which can be established as absolutely/objectively true for all of us and that which is instead embodied relative to a particular subjective/subjuctive assesment of any one particular individual. “In his/her head” in other words.
And democracy doesn’t “manufacture truths” so much as recognize that the alternatives are 1] might makes right or 2] right makes might.
Again, choose an actual human interaction in which values come into conflict and let’s explore the extent to which things might be differentiated as true absolutely or true only from one or another political prejudice rooted in a particular set of subjective assumptions/premises.
All truth is conditional. I dunno about this absolute/relative distinction being put into play here. Mags, you’re doing it wrong.
Ultimately, all of our speculations regarding what is true would seem to be predicated necessarily on whatever the ontological nature of Existence and Reality are.
In the interim however we can make distinctions between a map of the terrain and the actual terrain itself.
Just as we can make a distinction between demonstrating that someone invests in stocks [she either does or she does not] and demonstrating that such behavior is either moral or immoral.
You know, the part that is of more interest to me.
Any coherent statement that you make is either true or false. That aspect is called “Excluded Middle”.
If your statements are not true to reality, they must be false to reality (or simply incoherent).
Exactly. And that makes the statement that there are no absolutes incoherent (like saying “This statement is false”).
It means that you believe that it is a true-to-reality statement, unless you want everyone to just assume that you are always lying.
When you claim that there are no absolutes, aren’t you saying that such a statement is true-to-reality?
And if it is true-to-reality, it is absolutely true-to-reality. There is no middle ground to unconditional statements. You are not saying that sometimes there are no absolutes. You are saying that there absolutely are no absolutes ever.
My argument is precisely that statements are neither true nor false to reality but more or less in tune with reality.
The statement that “there are no absolutes” is not incoherent because it is not itself an absolute. It only appears so because words lag behind concepts.
What you don’t realize is that coherence and incoherence, like truth and falsity, and indeed, like all other things, are relative. What is coherent to one is incoherent to another and vice versa.
Coherence simply indicates that one’s mind is organized; that every concept, indeed, every mental object, is differentiated, kept apart, from every other; that there is no confusion, no conflation, between objects that were previously registered as distinct.
Coherence has nothing at all to do with the universe. It is created by the subject in order to protect oneself from reality – coherence is anti-realistic – and that by establishing boundaries, by repelling reality that cannot be processed, by blinding oneself.
Coherence simply means that one’s mind is not overwhelmed. That there is no too much stimulation in the mind. That one has not ingested something one cannot digest. Nothing else.
What you’re doing here is you are projecting onto the universe boundaries that you yourself have set against the universe in order to protect yourself from it, thinking that there is no universe beyond these boundaries.
You are, quite simply, confusing the abstract for the real.
You are too logical.
It is logic that is the product of the universe, not the universe that is the product of logic.
It is absolutism that is incoherent because it conflates what was previously registered as distinct.
Basic definitions to help make things clear.
Map
A duplicate of some aspect of reality
Truth
A map that is relatively similar to what is being mapped
Absolute truth
A map that is absolutely similar to what is being mapped
Absolute similarity
Complete absence of difference
When we say that there are two things, we imply that they are different.
When we say that two things are absolutely similar, we are saying they are not different, which contradicts our earlier observation that they are different.
Thus, you cannot believe in absolute truth without being incoherent.