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…
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.
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?
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.
that views have a relative reference point (that they are personal) rather than that they have an absolute reference point (that they are universal)
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.
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.
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.
That wasn’t a strawman. Strawman is an attack. That was a defense. A defense against one possible interpretation of what you might be saying. I have no clue what you’re saying. Though I am sure it’s misplaced.
An example of strawman would be claiming that relativism is self-refuting because its statement that “there is no absolute truth” is a statement of absolute truth. Which it is not. The statement is perfectly consistent. It applies to every statement including itself. No statement is a reflection of absolute, universal, impersonal, omniscient, perfect, God’s-eye view. Not even that statement.