Absolutism versus Relativism

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.

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.

There is not even the implication of wishing in my objective statement. I’ve seen straw men before, but never one so blatantly obvious and just awful.

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.

A straw man is not an attack, it is an argument that you defeat besides the one I gave, to feel like you won.

My argument for objectivity was simple:

In order to walk down a sidewalk, you must actually walk down a sidewalk (duh!!)

So your straw man is that I was WISHING !!!

It’s logically incoherent!!

You’re a disingenuous moron

You make zero sense.

You might have missed the thread.
This isn’t Objectivity vs Subjectivity thread.
This is Absolutism vs Relativism thread.

They’re the same thing.

If I say something is objective, I’m saying it’s absolute.

If I say something is subjective, I’m saying it’s relative.

You are not even a good thinker Magnus…

Let alone a great one.

They aren’t.

The word “objective” means “independent from mind”.

Objectivism is the position that reality is independent from, external to, mind.

I am an objectivist.
But I am not an absolutist.

This is like talking to a really bad cell phone ap, called “talk to retards”

Absolute means true under all circumstances…

I’m sorry man, but your philosophy is so bad, I can’t even humor this anymore

The subject of this thread is the nature of subject-object relation.

The question is whether the perceiving subject can acquire perfect knowledge of the perceived object.

The question is whether there is such a thing as perfect knowledge – view, position, model, map, representation, perception, etc – or not.

Whether there is, or at the very least whether there can be, a map of reality that has one-to-one correspondence with reality.

Absolutism, in this context, is the position that there are perfect positions.

This thread has NOTHING to do with the question of the extent to which knowledge is applicable. We do not care whether knowledge is applicable to some or all situations.

Also, this thread has NOTHING to do with the question of whether reality is objective or subjective. This thread does not question the existence of object as separate from the subject.

This thread examines the nature of the object – it already assumes that there is an object separate from the subject – in order to establish whether there can or cannot be perfect subject-object correspondence.

My position is that subject-object relation is antagonistic.
There can never be any unity between the two.

Everything objective is a process.
Everything subjective is a state.

Process is imperceptible.
It’s unconscious.
Forever outside of our view.
Thus, it can only be defined using negative statements.
In opposition to state.
Process is that which is not state.

State, on the other hand, is perceptible.
It’s the building block of our consciousness.
It is defined using positive statements.

State is orthogonal to process.
So it cannot mirror it.
However, it can imitate it.
It can approximate it.

A sequence of states forms a pattern.
A difference between two successive states is change.
Change is the best approximation to process.
The faster the change, which means the less persistent the state, the better the approximation.

Absolutism is the insistence that there is, or can be, a subject-object unity.

It insists that states are real.
That the difference between the subjective and the objective merely lies in the kind of states.

They acknowledge nothing unconscious.
Everything must be explained, visible, evident, clear, apparent, revealed, exposed, public, naked, obscene, pornographic . . .

You’re playing lots of word games.

I asked quite simply 3 pages ago why our walking through reality cannot be the terrain. Why it must be the map?

Why can’t our words be the terrain ?

You ignored me.

Absolute is what’s true for every possible state of being.

Even the relativistic can be true for every possible state or process.

It’s only merely relativistic because you have multiple beings … But that does not imply all those beings disagree.

When I state that “in order for a person to walk on a street, a person much actually be walking down a street”

That is relative because it’s a person, and absolute, because it’s true under all circumstances.

Absolutism and relativism are not mutually exclusive formulations. They coexist.

To suggest otherwise is incoherent.