I may be wrong with this distinction but I’ll give it a wack for grins.
I’m a strong believer that death is NOT relative. So, I’m forced to see it as Absolute.
but, i go further into saying that the absolute cannot be something. Because something is relative. How can the Absolute be relative? So there’s a clear contradiction. there cannot be ‘absolute something’ any further that there can be ‘absolute relative’ because something is always relative. since something is always relative to say its ‘absolute something’ is to say its ‘absolute relative’.
So you’re saying the absolute makes no sense? I agree, I can’t make sense of what it would be for a thing to be ‘absolutely’ so. I don’t know what view of his it comes from, but Simon Blackburn talks about Ramsey’s ladder. Basically, to say that x is true, or that x is objectively true, or that x is such that it could never have been false, or that it could never have been the case that the world was such that x could have been false, or whatever, are really all saying the same thing: asserting that x is the case. The formation of the absolute is the removal of all conditions, but all things have conditions. Now please somebody don’t point out that I can hardly say absolutely that no things have conditions…
You can hardly say that all things have conditions!
This whole thread seem a bit too nonspecific to me.
The set of all things that are something is a rather big set. When you say “everthing is relative” what do you really mean? Things are either absolute or relative.
I think it is far more the case that everything seems relative simply because are perspective of reality is relative. Things in themselves are absolute.
We see things as relative simply because we understand them in terms of relative concepts. If we can view things as a whole we will discover that nature is absolute.