Perhaps it’s better to say they are resolute statements determined by their purposefulness.
I don’t disagree with that, but it doesn’t change my mind to thinking omar is right.
Another way to put my objection is that those statements are metaphysics and very strong versions of metaphysical statements.
I wonder how much of ‘self’ maintained in mind is metaphysical. Speaking my mind sounds peculiar to me now. Surely I shouldn’t question the veracity of my own thoughts that sustain me. If I try to look at my thoughts I might get in trouble …. something not to be taken lightly; tantamount to questioning the reality that has been put into place. Is it that I need something to cling to?
Actually if you are reasonably healthy otherwise, I would strongly recommend doing just that… “questioning your own thoughts into oblivion”.
The (tested) rationale is that what happens is the “system reboots”. The “new you” has a much cleaner “ram working space” and “page memory”, hence faster, clearer thoughts that typically include everything you had ever thought prior, merely far more organized and cohesive. Memory isn’t lost (hence the need to be otherwise healthy). So information isn’t lost. It merely removes “psychological viruses and worms” (unneeded worries that you were not aware of hidden deep within occupying mental resources, perverting thoughts, and making the system sluggish).
But unlike Microsoftware, you can’t repeat it every hour. You basically get one shot at it, so don’t waste it by presuming that your cleaner fresh reboot is not going to get immediately attacked with more of the same as before. You are living in a mentally and medically hostile environment.
I know what you’re trying to do. But even that doesn’t have a leg to stand on any more. It’s part of the oblivion program. Finished, man.
You see, you don’t surrender to something you think is better; it’s a total surrender lest your clarity of thought is something to be attained.
I don’t disagree that relativistic statements are metaphysical statements. They are abstract statements, not limited by what can be known through direct physical observation and experiment. But relativistic statements are not absolute statements. To state that it is always and necessarily true that anything that exists is impermanent (everything “thing” changes through time), interdependent (every “thing” exists in relationship to other “things”), and lacking inherent identity (every “thing” is defined relative to a particular frame of reference) is to unequivocally state that nothing has absolute existence. “Absoluteness” is not a synonym for “certainty”.
If you then ask how I can be so certain, I’d suggest you ask yourself how something can exist that doesn’t relate to anything else and doesn’t change. If such a thing is possible at all, it can’t be known because it doesn’t stand in any kind of relationship at all to you and me.
Nice conversation, and nice conclusion. A fun read.
Perhaps some are not, but the ones I mentioned were.
To say that nothing is fixed is another way of saying that everything changes. That’s an absolute statement. I mean, perhaps there could be a universe that was a diamond that just sat there, forever, unchanging. But no, an absolute statement is being made about this universe. It is not like that one. It is changing, always and everywhere.
I didn’t think it was, see above.
[/quote]
See, now you are saying it is logical to conclude that things change or correct that they do and these have nothing to do with absoluteness. An suggestion that something absolute could be correct or false. Logical or not, in context. In fact what you presented here was an argument that these qualities are absolute ones. That they hold true everywhere and in all cases.
Your argument often gets put in the negative, so it seems relativistic. But it is actually a set of positive claims about what is true everywhere. If you then point out that you can’t imagine it being different, this adds nothing to the issue of absoluteness. You may be correct, perhaps it is an absolute truth that things change everywhere and always. So of course this absolute truth seems like it has to be true to you.
Moreno,
You’re conflating “absolute” and “certain” and “universal” throughout. People obviously use these words in different ways, so I was very clear in how I used “absolute”. I offered a definition. According to the definition I offered, absolute is the opposite of relative but has no problem with certain or universal.
“Absolute” is often used to talk about God. An atheist can say God doesn’t exist anywhere at any time. And she can say it with certainty. There is no contradiction there. God’s “absolute” qualities can be investigated and dispensed with. For example. Which doesn’t say anything about other definitions of God. Again, this is just an example, relevant because that is the dominant history of the word and its usage.
Anyway, it’s all just equivocation.
Emm… an atheist can “feel” certain in such claims. But no atheist can ever establish logical certainty of such a claim. I happen to know, because I can establish logical certainty of the contrary.
From what I have read, I don’t think Moreno is guilty of that.
You are right that “absolute” means “non-relative”. But it also is used to refer to “absolutely correct” or “100% certain”. It actually refers to purity, “absent of solvents”.
And “relativistic statements” if referring to what is or isn’t relative, certainly does constitute an absolute (non-relative) claim. Thus saying or claiming “Absolutely relative” is an oxymoron.
Forget about certainty. I have very little interest in the question of how much certainty can be justified. I hardly even know what that’s supposed to mean. To say that the only thing that never changes is change itself is not to say that something never changes. I can’t even fathom the depths of silliness of such an argument.
To state that it is always and necessarily true that anything that exists is impermanent (everything “thing” changes through time), interdependent (every “thing” exists in relationship to other “things”), and lacking inherent identity (every “thing” is defined relative to a particular frame of reference) is to unequivocally state that nothing has absolute existence.
It’s very straightforward. You just have to not get caught in your own web of words.
Unless you are using ‘absolute’ in this context as a synonym for ‘certainly’ or ‘definitely’.
But that is the point. It certainly does say that there is something that never changes. Look at the words, “the only thing that never changes”. How can you claim that it doesn’t say that there is something that never changes? “The only thing” and “change itself” is obviously a “something”.
Yes… and your point?
Ohhh… don’t go jump to that conclusion.
When “they” say it, they are saying that “all things are relative”. So no, they don’t mean “certainly”. They mean “absolutely everything”.
In reality, it is only Relativity that is relative.
Change itself is a something? Good one.
Somebody help me. This is depressing.
It’s the problem of self reference dude. You can get all kinds of long-winded “explanations”, and even more examples of discourse between people who don’t understand it just trying to have conversations all over the internet.
It’s a language thing not a knowledge thing. Don’t worry man. All that, everything is something, something is nothing, nothing can’t be something even though it’s a thing, kind of talk can properly be shunned. Don’t get caught up in it. It doesn’t even really count as philosophy, just people trying to be philosophical. I feel your pain.
I hate to be the one to tell you, but CHANGE is the entirety of physical existence. Change is ALL that comprises physicality.
If it doesn’t have changing going on inside of it, it isn’t physical.
Thanks Smears.
Sorry James, I’m out of time.