Absolutism versus Relativism

Is that everything you had to say, moron? I personally hope so.

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:

Language Timothy.

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.

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.

How do you know your version of truth isnt time dependent?
If truth made you unhappy then would it no longer be truth?

Knowledge and truth are not objects as they do not have physical properties

I didn’t say they are physical objects but objects in the general sense of the word.

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.

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.

Truth remains unknown. Truth does not depend on my happiness to exist.

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.

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

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.

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?

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!!

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 …

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.

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!!!

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.