Absolutism versus Relativism

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Absolutism versus Relativism

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Sat Jan 07, 2017 6:56 pm

I know that many people in this thread need to empty their cup before they can drink it. I don't know who, because I didn't actually read through everything.

Maybe I need to empty my own cup, long as what their selling isn't Gatorade.
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
the Grandmother.
 
Posts: 7753
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Absolutism versus Relativism

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Jan 07, 2017 7:01 pm

phyllo wrote:You're the only one using this definition and making claims about it.


And your point is exactly what?

Noone cares how people define their words but how they interact with reality.

You can think there are no absolutes and nonetheless interact with reality as if there are absolutes.

You are distracting yourself from what I am saying by insisting so much on the mundane "but there are relative absolutes, here let me show . . ."

Not to mention this pathological obsession with definitions and social conventions.

Is that what you want to do?

To misinterpret me so you don't have to bother trying to understand what I am saying?

If that is so, be my guest, knock yourself out.

Pay close attention to James. You may learn a thing or two. I mean, regarding the art of misinterpretation.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3162
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Absolutism versus Relativism

Postby phyllo » Sat Jan 07, 2017 7:12 pm

Noone cares how people define their words but how they interact with reality.
You're using words to babble.
You can think there are no absolutes and nonetheless interact with reality as if there are absolutes.

You are distracting yourself from what I am saying by insisting so much on the mundane "but there are relative absolutes, here let me show . . ."
I don't think that you have even correctly identified what I, James or Iambiguous think.
To misinterpret me so you don't have to bother trying to understand what I am saying?
I understand what you are saying ... you have latched on to one little idea and it has completely filled your mind.
Specifically this idea :
To repeat:
Absolutely identical objects are one and the same object. Yikes.


Wallow in your trivialities if you wish. Others have moved beyond them.
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9696
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Far away from the BS

Re: Absolutism versus Relativism

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Jan 07, 2017 7:21 pm

Is that everything you had to say, moron? I personally hope so.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3162
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Absolutism versus Relativism

Postby WendyDarling » Sat Jan 07, 2017 10:47 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Maniacal Mongoose wrote:An absolutely comprehensive truth, I like that but absolute and comprehensive seem like overkill. My definition of truth is understanding the whole story (which is absolute and comprehensive but not time dependent). Aspects that are true do not equal truth and these trues are time dependent. The mountain on the map could fall into an enormous and deep sinkhole, but that truth was time dependent, so not my version of truth.

That seems to be intentionally making Your "truth" a different meaning than common English and everyone else means by the term.

If I say that the dog is less than 10 feet high, I have told a truth. I did not mention the color of the dog nor the infinite variety of other aspects. Yet, even though not a comprehensive accounting of that particular dog, the statement was 100% true by normal English speaking standards.


Like I wrote, a true is just an aspect of a truth but not the whole story and yes, I improved the definition to mean what it was intended to mean, not bits and pieces espoused as if they are the full truth. That's where truth goes awry where people have leeway to act as if they have the whole story on account of having a few true tidbits.

UK Court procedures:
Witness Oath
"I swear by .......... (according to religious belief) that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

Witness Affirmation
"I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

Promissory Oath
This oath should be taken by any person before a youth or family court and by a child before any other court. A child under the age of 14 shall give their evidence unsworn in criminal proceedings.

"I promise before .......... (according to religious belief) that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

Promissory Affirmation
"I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

Crown Court Witness Oath
"I swear by .......... (according to religious belief) that my evidence to the court and the jury on this trial shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

Crown Court Witness Affirmation
"I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 4631
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Absolutism versus Relativism

Postby MagsJ » Sat Jan 07, 2017 11:07 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Is that everything you had to say, moron?
Language Timothy.
Image
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 16765
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: Absolutism versus Relativism

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Jan 07, 2017 11:41 pm

phyllo wrote:
Magnus Anderson wrote:There is a deaf-blind man in that room with a cat. He sees no cat in that room. His knowledge of what is in the room is zero. Therefore, the reality of the room is zero a.k.a. nothing.
There you are mistaking his map for reality.

You're not making the distinction between his personal knowledge and objective knowledge. Or correct knowledge and incorrect knowledge.


Notice how he does not spot the irony. Even though I keep saying over and over again that no view is equal to reality. It does not matter if it's a deaf-blind view or an intelligent view. In both cases, it is just that: a view. But he has this need to present some views, not merely as better views, but as absolutely true views.

The "objective reality" is that if you placed other people in the room, they would also see the cat. That's why it's not a subjective case of perception. And it's also why objective knowledge of reality involves the agreement of many rational, intelligent people. But it's not a case of taking a vote and thinking that the vote result becomes reality, it's that vote filters out the extremes and leaves a general fact about reality as it can be understood at that time. Therefore, the perceptions of deaf-blind and crazy people do not form "knowledge about reality".


Here, he's telling us how socially dependent his view of reality is. And that is fine, to an extent. But it becomes unbearable the moment he starts insisting that this is something more than a view that is better, and then only in his opinion, in relation to that of a deaf-blind man. It's pathetic because it indicates that he cannot own his opinions. Instead, he must attribute them to some Higher Force such as Intelligent People.

He can't say it's his opinion because it is not. His opinions he is suppressing because he cannot trust them. But that does not mean it is Truth. It simply means it's someone else's opinion.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3162
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Absolutism versus Relativism

Postby surreptitious57 » Sun Jan 08, 2017 9:28 am

Maniacal Mongoose wrote:
An absolutely comprehensive truth I like that but absolute and comprehensive seem like overkill. My definition of truth is understanding the whole story ( which
is absolute and comprehensive but not time dependent ) Aspects that are true do not equal truth and these trues are time dependent. The mountain on the map
could fall into an enormous and deep sinkhole but that truth was time dependent so not my version of truth

How do you know your version of truth isnt time dependent?
If truth made you unhappy then would it no longer be truth?
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1698
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: Absolutism versus Relativism

Postby surreptitious57 » Sun Jan 08, 2017 9:41 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:
My point is that knowledge and truth like any other two objects are orthogonal

Because they are two objects rather than one object assigning them different values does not lead to a contradiction

Knowledge and truth are not objects as they do not have physical properties
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1698
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: Absolutism versus Relativism

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Jan 08, 2017 10:42 am

I didn't say they are physical objects but objects in the general sense of the word.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3162
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Absolutism versus Relativism

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Jan 08, 2017 10:56 am

phyllo wrote:Some knowledge must be truth because if it wasn't we would not be able to interact with the world successfully.


Reality does not operate according to rules. It does not unfold according to a plan.

Reality is not determined by rules. Rather, rules are determined by reality.

There are no units, no countable objects, in reality. Therefore, there is also no interaction between them. There is no cause-and-effect.

What there is is necessity. Reality simply happens.

Knowledge is nothing but a piece of necessity.

There is no set S that represents the subject and no set O that represents the object and that contains an infinite number of objects that can be copied to the set S by the means of perception.

That's merely how we describe reality.

I have already established that there are no perfect copies. A copy that is perfect is either not perfect or not a copy.

I have also established that the appearance of perfection is created by ignoring differences. Two objects can be seen as perfectly identical only when we ignore they are not perfectly identical (e.g. when we ignore they have different location in space.)

What does it say about a man when he insists that reality unfolds according to a plan?

It cannot possibly say that he is above necessity because nothing is above necessity.

What it says is that he cannot adapt to reality. It says that he is consumed by some fixed pattern of behavior, some impulse, to such an extent that he has no choice but to project it onto the universe as some sort of universal law.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3162
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Absolutism versus Relativism

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Jan 08, 2017 1:23 pm

To use Leibniz's terminology, objects are windowless monads. They have no windows through which things can come in and go out. There is no communication, no interaction, no cause-and-effect between them. But unlike Leibniz who appears to think that objects belong to reality, I think that objects belong to models of reality. Whatever is countable -- and objects are countable -- is not real. My point, then, is merely that treating objects as windowless monads is the best way to represent reality. Not that reality is made out of windowless monads.

Thus, observation is not a communication between the perceiver and the perceived. Rather, that's merely a description of reality -- one more windowless monad among windowless monads.

It's difficult to understand that the universe is ruled by necessity and not by causality.

It's difficult to understand that we know not because our knowledge is a copy of reality -- nothing is a copy of anything else -- but because we must know.

Another way to say it is that we know because we are used to knowing.

A matter of tradition rather than of communication.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3162
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Absolutism versus Relativism

Postby WendyDarling » Sun Jan 08, 2017 6:32 pm

Truth remains unknown. Truth does not depend on my happiness to exist.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 4631
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Absolutism versus Relativism

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Jan 08, 2017 9:23 pm

James S Saint wrote:You say that the elephant is not the reality, but only an image/perception. What is the elephant an image of?

[..]

I only asked what the elephant is an image of. You said that it was an image, but not the real thing. So what is the real thing that it is supposed to be an image of?

Magnus Anderson wrote:Elephant is an image of that which is not an elephant.

Then what is it that is not an elephant although represented by an image of an elephant? Every image is an image of something.


He keeps asking me to define with a positive statement something that cannot be defined with a positive statement.

His curse being that he only accepts positive statements. Negative statements he rejects -- he considers them to be a misuse of language.

Only descriptions can be expressed using positive statements. What they describe can only be expressed using negative statements.

He keeps asking for an abstraction that is real -- the God abstraction.

I keep saying there isn't one but he nonetheless keeps asking for one.

Every image is an image of something, that is true. But that does not mean I have to know what that something is.

In fact, it is impossible to do so.

But he just keeps asking for the impossible. Over and over again.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3162
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Absolutism versus Relativism

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Sun Jan 08, 2017 9:35 pm

ask someone what is love and you will a subjective answer for
love is different for every single person....
and ask someone what is a chair and you
will get a subjective answer because for a chair is something
different for everyone.......
ask someone, millions upon millions of someone what is god
and you will get millions upon millions of answers......

ask someone if 1 + 1 = 2 and they will answer yes....
but think about it...
isn't 1 + 1 = 2 really just another argument that is the
all unmarried men are bachelors argument......
we have presupposed the answer in the question......

so what is absolute and what is relativism?

everything is relative.......


Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"

The RNC has announced that's its changing the Republican emblem from
an elephant to an condom because it more clearly reflects the party's political
stance: a condom stands for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation,
protects a bunch of pricks, and gives one a sense of security while screwing others.

Kropotkin
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5705
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: Absolutism versus Relativism

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Jan 08, 2017 10:26 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Magnus Anderson wrote:You are asking for the impossible. You are asking me to answer your question without using an image. But I cannot do so because consciousness can only ever deal with images. Questions such as "what is this image an image of?" can only be answered with another image.

Your are saying that an elephant is merely an image of an image of an image of .. ad infinitum. There is no reality associated with elephants or with any word in your use of language.

So you are always only speaking of the unreal.


I have to note, even if it means repeating myself, that I am not saying that images -- and by images I mean representations in general -- point to each other. Quite the opposite, in fact. I am saying that images point away from each other.

James is merely demonstrating binary thinking. Either images point to some God image (which he incorrectly considers to be reality) or they point to each other (which he correctly considers not to be reality.) There is no other alternative.

He can't imagine a scenario in which images do not point to each other.

He does not want to accept that images point to the unknown. And that every attempt to make the unknown known results in another image.

He does not want to accept that the conscious (which is where images reside) is product of the unconscious.

There is no reality unless he is conscious of it.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3162
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Absolutism versus Relativism

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:53 pm

phyllo wrote:
If intelligent people agree it is true, it is true.
What's the difference between intelligent and unintelligent?


Every view is a personal view.
There is no universal view.

There is only a pretense of universal view.
Born out of the inability to own one's view.

Difference in view leads to conflict.
And those who cannot endure conflict?
They compromise their personal view.
By adopting a common view.

There are those who are honest.
Who admit their view is nothing but a common view.
Such as Biguous.

And those who are dishonest.
Who pretend their view is the universal view.
Such as James.

The difference between intelligent and unintelligent is a view.
Because views are personal, rather than universal, this means that the act of differentiation between the two is an inborn tendency.
More generally, a necessity.
It's simply something one knows.
To ask a question such as "what's the difference between unintelligent and intelligent?" is akin to asking "what's the difference between blue and red?"
How would you answer such a question?
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3162
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Absolutism versus Relativism

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:06 pm

Well... I'll just say the same thing I said to iamb....

Skull fucking living people is not good for both parties.

That's objectively true.

If everything is subjectively true, Magnus and iamb get to walk around as conquering heroes who don't need arguments to be the best person ever!!
Do unto yourself and others as you'd do unto yourself if you were them (and you) - Ecmandu's Rule.

Ecmandu's second rule: calculate the set of your argument upon itself before you argue!

Stratification of motivational systems towards conspicuous consumption or extraneous drama cause all human ills - that was the most important thing you'll ever read in your life. - Ecmandu

The biggest problem in life... That more than one person wants the same thing! Solve this, and you have beaten the demon of life!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6712
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Absolutism versus Relativism

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:26 pm

Never said anything I say is true.
Even less so subjectively true.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3162
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Absolutism versus Relativism

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:16 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Never said anything I say is true.
Even less so subjectively true.


Great some asshole who thinks Russell's "paradox" and the liars paradox is the pinnacle of all truth ...
Do unto yourself and others as you'd do unto yourself if you were them (and you) - Ecmandu's Rule.

Ecmandu's second rule: calculate the set of your argument upon itself before you argue!

Stratification of motivational systems towards conspicuous consumption or extraneous drama cause all human ills - that was the most important thing you'll ever read in your life. - Ecmandu

The biggest problem in life... That more than one person wants the same thing! Solve this, and you have beaten the demon of life!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6712
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Absolutism versus Relativism

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:18 pm

Not the response I was expecting.
I was expecting a typical response.

Something like:
"Then it means everything you say is false."

Which is easily responded to by reminding everyone that negation is not affirmation; that negation of X, such as truth, is not the affirmation of its opposite Y, such as falsehood.

My views are neither true nor false.
They are simply my views.

But to people like you, this is not enough.
You must be one with the universe.
Naturally, since you're an egocentric.
Unable to see yourself as separate from the other.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3162
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Absolutism versus Relativism

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:53 am

I once had someone ask me if their feelings were objective or subjective , and I replied rightfully, they a objectively subjective ...

It is objective to you that you, a subjective being, had those feelings.

You seem to think all objectivists are narcissists...

I think that in order to walk down a sidewalk, you must actually walk down a sidewalk

SHAME ON ME!!!
Do unto yourself and others as you'd do unto yourself if you were them (and you) - Ecmandu's Rule.

Ecmandu's second rule: calculate the set of your argument upon itself before you argue!

Stratification of motivational systems towards conspicuous consumption or extraneous drama cause all human ills - that was the most important thing you'll ever read in your life. - Ecmandu

The biggest problem in life... That more than one person wants the same thing! Solve this, and you have beaten the demon of life!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6712
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Absolutism versus Relativism

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:10 am

Relativism can mean two different things:

1. that views have a relative reference point (that they are personal) rather than that they have an absolute reference point (that they are universal)

2. that every view is equal to every other view

I agree with the first and disagree with the second.

Insofar it is claimed that the second is an absolute truth, rather than merely a personal view, it is a form of absolutism, and so, the opposite of relativism in proper sense of the word.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3162
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Absolutism versus Relativism

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:43 am

Ecmandu wrote:You seem to think all objectivists are narcissists...

I think that in order to walk down a sidewalk, you must actually walk down a sidewalk

SHAME ON ME!!!


You seem to think that I think that you can walk down a sidewalk by simply making a wish.

When did I say, or imply, something like that?

Insofar it is claimed that there is a universal law that obeys our wishes, though not necessarily that makes them come true, we are in the territory of absolutism.
Last edited by Magnus Anderson on Thu Jan 12, 2017 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3162
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Absolutism versus Relativism

Postby Meno_ » Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:41 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
Magnus Anderson wrote:Never said anything I say is true.
Even less so subjectively true.


Great some asshole who thinks Russell's "paradox"
and the liars paradox is the pinnacle of all truth ...


Had some reading into this forum, and have very little time to read, but found an MIT PHD math prof stating Something to the effect that the Narcissism is nothing else but a set theory signifying self reference.
Don't have the paper, and it makes fodder for future reading. It is bookish, yes, but I am depending on it in a sort of way the injured pining for a salve.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2097
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users