This post is specifically for Kingdaddy, but is open to anyone interested in absolutes.
First, Kingdaddy, I would like to know your definition of what an absolute is. What qualifies an absolute?
I think that’s a good place to begin, then we can discuss if absolutes exist.
Absolutes and relatives are merely two polemic sides of the same extremist argument, neither, in and of themselves, being true.
An absolutist says chocolate is the best flavor without question.
A relativist says that a tree could be a rock upon closer examination.
An absolutist, therefore, takes an obvious relative and treats it as if it was objectively absolute, and a relativist takes an obvious absolute and treats it as if it was subjectively relative.
For the absolutist and the relativist, any attempts to reach a common ground where they can speak of absolutes as such and relatives as such is absolutely relatively difficult.
Neither is interested in truth.
Both, I am told, are interested in egocentric-superegocentric defense of their mental coping mechanisms.
Now the holiday shopping calls once again … and I am off. (Okay, no wisecracks!)
I do agree that absolutes and relatives are utilized by those that are trying to defend their current view of the world, and so can be used as extremist argument, but I think the context of the argument, most importantly the intentions of the messenger, determine whether or not one an interpretter of the message (with their own intention) decodes it as absolute or relative, and extreme or not.
For example (keep in mind that I am interpretting the messages, not your intended meaning behind them):
The absolutist is interpretting the world through the senses. The sense is taste. The absolutist’s brain interprets the taste as preferable over all others it has experienced. So, the absolutist is correct. The only world that exists for that mind is the information the brain receives (and that the conscious mind organizes); the absolutist’s words convey the truth.
If the absolutist actually means “chocolate is the best flavor, nothing compares, and everybody who interprets anything else as tastier is a fool” then the absolutist is a fool.
No person with a vocabulary that differentiates a tree from a rock would make this argument while actually referring to the english speakers’ shared definition of the words.
If a relativist were to actually say this, I’d argue that the relativist refers to a particular mental schema in which both rock and tree meet the same criteria.
Example:
I’m walking through the forest and need a way to mark where I’ve been so I know if I’m going in circles. I have some red paint, but I need an object to mark.
A rock is a good object to mark with paint, but upon closer examination so could a tree.
Suitable object to mark = A
Rock = A
Tree = A
A = A
Rock = Tree
Most relatives are relativistic in terms of something having different meanings for different people. Relativists are relative when it comes to language and culture. They are always relative about something in terms of the brain’s interpretation, never solely based on something outside the brain.
No knowledgeable relativist would say "upon closer examination, that tree has all of the features of that rock which have been identified as fact by objective observation. You cannot find anything about the rock that makes it a rock that the tree does not have (and vice-versa).
According to what I have said, do you mean one making an absolutist argument for a particular issue, and one giving a relativist argument for the same particular issue (the fact that a person can be absolutist in regards to something and relativistic for another makes your statement, in terms of any and all general subjects, false)?
I do think that middle ground can be found somewhere, however, and both parties can come to a point where they understand the meaning of each other’s argument (assuming that it isn’t the case of one person (A) understanding the other’s (B) argument, and understanding they (B) are wrong, because (according to a context of interpretation which it is established they both share) the person (A) is right. )
This sentence can be interpretted by whether or not we consider truth as an absolutely truth, or a relative subjective truth (sorry 
).
If we are talking about an ultimate WAY of the universe… certain principles that our language manages to precisely interpret (this isn’t possible with a cultural language… but mathematics might someday manage) then of course these people are not interested about the truth, because they cannot even fathom it.
They simply pursue an abstract ideal that fits in their mind.
Most of them want to feel comfortable, want some reassurance that their intellectual insights are on the right path (so they feel secure that they are doing the right thing with their moments/time/life), so their ultimate interest is validation.
If this is so, then they are very interested in the subjective “truth”, which they believe they already know, because they try so hard to maintain their mind’s organization of the world, simply adding weight so existing configurations.
Often true. Unless either the absolutist’s or the relativist’s argument is valid.
You’re lucky I haven’t finished all my shopping yet…
I should have posted in this thread, not the purpose of life thread.
This is Kingdaddy’s post on the subject.
I still feel, kingdaddy, you need to clarify your definition of absolutes based on the post above.