Absolutes, The topic to be debated.

[Club29]

Some of you don’t believe in absolutes, but use them 50% of the time. Some of us do use absolutes, and we end up being absolutely wrong.

Now, I believe you cannot deny an absolute, because when you do, you only posit an absolute, Examples:

No Truth Exists.
You can’t be Certain about Anything.

Both of these statements, posit absolutes and deny the existence of them at the same time.

Next Example:

Truth is relative.

Two ways of looking at it, if Truth is relative is it including itself in the statement or excluding itself? If it includes it says this statement is also relative, so thus you can’t be sure, and Truth could exist. If it excludes itself it’s positing an absolute yet again while denying that they exist.

But before many of you get uptight about what I’ve said, let me explain a bit deeper into what I think many of you relativist believe.

For Instance. When someone posits an absolute statement, they could be wrong or right, but to be wrong or right would not exist, so basically if no absolutes exist you can never come to a conclusion. But I think what many of you try to say is that when someone say’s this is right, you are trying to say… well. technically you could be wrong about that, and yes they very well may be wrong about it, but if it seems to hold up better than another option, then you can know pretty well. Which is faith, not the faith where you believe what you can’t see.

When someone tries to say its’ all relative, you can’t be certain, while that may be true you can’t make those statements and say you are certain that you can’t be certain.

So what’s better? How bout, I’m not certain, but I’m pretty sure you can’t be certain, however, you are still pretty certain, you are pretty sure.

It seems like no way you run, whenever you act as if you know what you’re talking about you must at least be pretty certain about it. And when us absolutist, use absolutes, it’s in the sense that we are, “pretty certain”. So I believe pretty certain is what we must rely on. You must always leave the option open that you could be wrong, but most of the time many things are very very certain. Like being very certain about being pretty sure.

Now i’ve tried to look at this in many different angles, I try to analyze myself before I type things. So if I’m missing something here let me know, but we need to get to the bottom of this absolute problem many of us on here have been having with each other. I mean, if one person doesn’t believe in them, and another one does, how can they ever come to a conclusion.

[Sauwelios]

The statement “everything is relative” is a self-contradiction, of course. But the theory of relativity does not say everything is relative, only that all values are relative. “All values are relative” is not a self-contradiction, because relativity is not a value. Something is either relative or absolute, it cannot be “quite relative” or “quite absolute”. You might compare it to beauty. One might say, “that flower is beautiful” (and for argument’s sake let’s take this as an objective statement, and agree with it: the flower in question is beautiful); the flower may be beautiful, but its beauty - its being beautiful - is itself not beautiful. This is a mistake that Socrates makes in the Symposium:

Remember further what you said in your speech, or if you do not remember I will remind you: you said that the love of the beautiful set in order the empire of the gods, for that of deformed things there is no love - did you not say something of that kind?

Yes, said Agathon.
Yes, my friend, and the remark was a just one. And if this is true, Love is the love of beauty and not of deformity?

He assented.
And the admission has been already made that Love is of something which a man wants and has not?

True, he said.
Then Love wants and has not beauty?

If Love [Erôs] is the love of beauty, that is, the loving of beauty, then this love does not itself love beauty: it is love, it does not love.

[Club29]

@Sauwelios

The statement “everything is relative” is a self-contradiction, of course. But the theory of relativity does not say everything is relative, only that all values are relative. “All values are relative” is not a self-contradiction, because relativity is not a value. Something is either relative or absolute, it cannot be “quite relative” or “quite absolute”. You might compare it to beauty. One might say, “that flower is beautiful” (and for argument’s sake let’s take this as an objective statement, and agree with it: the flower in question is beautiful); the flower may be beautiful, but its beauty - its being beautiful - is itself not beautiful. This is a mistake that Socrates makes in the Symposium:

Remember further what you said in your speech, or if you do not remember I will remind you: you said that the love of the beautiful set in order the empire of the gods, for that of deformed things there is no love - did you not say something of that kind?

Yes, said Agathon.
Yes, my friend, and the remark was a just one. And if this is true, Love is the love of beauty and not of deformity?

He assented.
And the admission has been already made that Love is of something which a man wants and has not?

True, he said.
Then Love wants and has not beauty?

If Love [Erôs] is the love of beauty, that is, the loving of beauty, then this love does not itself love beauty: it is love, it does not love.

Oh well of course, I definitely agree with relative aesthetics and such.

[Knox]

@Club29

Some of you don’t believe in absolutes, but use them 50% of the time. Some of us do use absolutes, and we end up being absolutely wrong.

Now, I believe you cannot deny an absolute, because when you do, you only posit an absolute, Examples:

No Truth Exists.
You can’t be Certain about Anything.

Both of these statements, posit absolutes and deny the existence of them at the same time.

I don’t deny Absolute Truth.

I DO deny that any statement can be absolutely true. However, the limitation is in the nature of language and reason, not in the nature of Truth.

[Uccisore]

Analytic statements can be absolutely true, because they don’t get caught up in those limitations of language. “There are no married bachelors” or “Three plus three equals six” get to be absolute truths, because they don’t apply to anything outside of the terms they reference.

Beyond that, there [i]must[/i] be absolute truth in order for there to be relative truth, that's just the nature of things being relative to each other. Even the theory of physical relativity had the speed of light as a constant, and needed to. Knowing that it must exist (even knowing that we must all be aware of it) doesn't mean we can pinpoint which belief or beliefs it is.