Thought is like this, you do not know it until you think it.
Relative is like this, all else is relative but the truth that all else is relative is absolute. the relative tries to act in all opinions because ‘all are equally valid’ in the absolute sense.
absolute is like this, all is absolute intended with arrogance. the absolute says ‘all is invalid except it.’
so the relative and absolute is the same.
relative: all else is relative, except it.
absolute : all else is relative, except it.
the relative and absolute are both absolute.
The thought permits thinking. but the relative in maliciousness attempts to discredit the thought by claim it is groundless. all thoughts are groundless in that they are all dependant on the beings in question. but just because thoughts are groundless does not stop us from thinking groundless thoughts.
My old philosophy, ‘stop pondering about your life, just live it’. All problems is a problem of power and with in me all is solved.
so if you have any questions about anything, please ask me. I can solve ALL
You are misunderstanding the difference between relativism and absolutism. In absolutism, there is something taken to be absolute, to which all other things relate. In absolutism, everything is relative to that one defined Absolute; and the Absolute is relative to nothing. Something is either “true” or “false”; 1=1 but not 1=2. In other words, the Absolute defines reality; all things get their meaning ONLY by relating to the one Absolute.
In relativism, the term “relative” means the same thing as the term “absolute”; because everything is relative to everything else, everything is an absolute. Relativism basically asserts 1=1 AND 1=2; in fact, relativism means ALL things are “equal” and “not equal” simultaneously; for example, “good” and “evil” are both the same thing and different things. Thus if I declare something “good” and you declare it “evil”, we are both right and both wrong. Everything is both infinitely meaningful and infinitely meaningless.
Thus, absolutism and relativism are not the same thing, though absolutism can be thought of as a sort of “limitation” to relativism, since absolutism uses the concept of relation but not universally. To help explain, I made you a picture:
Granted, the “relativism” picture really ought to have the spheres be simultaneously EVERY shape and EVERY color…but please, I’m not that good with MSPAINT. Also, the white sphere in the “absolutism” picture should be surrounded by black (since everything not white is black), but I left some undefined space to show the relation going on.
I have one argument to add In support of what i think PoR is advocating
A=A
needs to be absolutely true in order for logic to have any value… if you do not value logic… you do not value rationality…
So either accept the nessesity for absolutes… or become irrational… it’s really as simple as that…
Also… I’d like to add… I find irrational people highly amuzing… I laugh at them allot… sometimes I even cry… especially when they happen to be world-leaders… But that’s a different story
Did you all have a merry xmas?
Someone actually bought me socks this year!!! I must have really pissed that person off…
Mad Man:
I am afraid you are mistaken. A=A only needs to be true for logic to work, not absolutely true. Basically, if logic has value AND doesn’t have value, the claim “logic has value” is still true. Non-Boolean logics, such as paraconsistent and multi-term logic, function perfectly well in accordance with relativism.
If you say that I must accept absolutes in order to be rational, and I am irrational, I can safely and unassailably disagree. I hereby deny absolutes and declare myself rational and irrational simultaneously. So long as I am irrational, I can call myself whatever I want and no proof you make can refute that…because I am irrational.
Thanks… that was fun… and I herby declare myself GOD!! because i am irrational!.. no wait… I’d rather be napoleon! BWAHAHAHA
You make a fine point though… by being irrational you can make any claim you wish… and i’m sure it’s just as true as anything else… cuz it’s all relative…
But if you don’t mind I will reserve the right to laugh at your disposition towards reason…
P.S. Is it absolutely true that you deny absolutes??
Ah, Mad Man…I really wish you would read a little more carefully. First of all, I’m not exactly a relativist; like so many things, I have not thought out my perspective on it enough to decide where I stand. But if I were a relativist, I would say: it is absolutely true that I deny absolutes, but it is also absolutely true that I affirm absolutes; Relativism asserts that true and false are both the same thing as well as different things. Absolutes exist and don’t exist simultaneously as well as exclusively. One of the possible implications of this stance (and there are infinite possible implications) is that being a relativist allows me to select what I consider to be an absolute.
Relativism is a sort of meta-ontology; I can step into and out of it as I wish. Relativism can be thought of as a sort of clay out which Absolutisms of various shapes can be sculpted. Because of the nature of Relativism, every proposition simultaneously holds every possible truth value, as well as none of them and infinite combinations of them. Consider: if A equals A, and A equals B, and A does not equal A, the statement “A equals A” is still true; but it is also false, because “A does not equal A” is true. This is how relativist logic works. If you want to make an Absolutism out of this, then you simply make a rule for which truth-values can apply to which type of proposition; you define, say, that “A=A” is true and only true, while “A does not equal A” is false and only false, and “A=B” is undefined until proven according to further rules.
Sorry, I am sure this makes little sense to you. I’ve yet to meet an absolutist who can step out of his or her absolutism and look at it from a relativist standpoint, and I don’t expect any exceptions from the members of this forum.
Let me say again, in closing, that I am not a relativist, but I can adopt that perspective. I’m sure TheAdlerian understands.
I think you’ve pushed right up against the paradox. You may, construct any absolute you prefer, (rational/irrational, being/non-being) but all such constructs swim in the mystery in that there is no way to prove a one-to-one correlation with reality. An absolute is ‘absolute’ because I say it is - but I could be wrong.
That you see both the rational and irrational as two sides of the same coin is very clear understanding. I very much enjoyed your posts.
Relativism is what weak minded people retreat into when they can’t otherwise defeat an opposing argument. As such it is little more than agonistic strategy
We never talk of the absolute, we only ever talk of the ‘absolute’ - the word itself…
we need some absolutes to deal with the reality we are currently constricted by. The absolute acceleration of gravity for instance. 9.8 M/s^2.
There are other things in life that it’s dangerous to have absolutes. Like, “my god is better than yours”, “my idea on how to live is better than yours”, “our race is better than yours”.
I think what we need is absolute relativism. Those who believe that their particular brand of holiness is the absolute truth (from buddhism to zoroastrianism) need to realize they speak from a position of relativity. At any moment what they believe could be taken over by another belief. It’s happened in the past, when buddhism took over many parts of Asia for confuciousism and hinduism (borrowing something from each.) and when christianity took over for the local pagan religions combining a bit of judaism.
Then Islam did it again.
The only absolute truth about belief is that, it’s constantly changing absolute.
Seems to me that both scythekain and igliashon are advocating the impossibility for philosophical certainty… and i would agree that philosophical certainty (or absolute certainty) is impossible short of being “omniscient”… BUT… denying the existence of absolutes rather then certainty about them is something VERY different…
What you end up saying is that “It is certain that nothing is certain including the truth of this statement.” creating a paradox…
If true then false… if false then true… and if true then false… and so on for eternity… disabling any basis for “rational” thinking…
I happen to agree with someoneisatthedoor… although i’d probably have put it more gently… Relativism is hiding from reason, by denying reason itself…
And igliashon
You presume too much… I actually used to be a ralativist… in my younger and more foolish days… I am perfectly capable of grasping the implications of a relativistic standpoint… But i’m afried that it does not alter the fact that relativists are consistently inconsistent…
Mad Man:
It’s not that your lack of agreement demonstrates a lack of understanding; so far you haven’t disagreed with my position. Rather, you have inaccurately represented my position, and disagreed with your representation of it.
No. That is not what relativism ends up saying. It’s more like “nothing and everything are certain simultaneously, including the truth and falsity of this statement.” From this, you can still assert that “everything as certain” and ascribe it the value of true without being inconsistent. Ditto “nothing is certain.” In relativism, everything is a paradox and nothing is a paradox. They are impossible because they are the norm.
Again, that is only one possible interpretation of relativism; relativism also permits “if true then true, if false then false, if true then not false, if not true then false”; how many times must I tell you that by definition relativism permits an infinite number of absolutisms? Any assertion can have any possible truth-value in relativism, including logical assertions.
Scythekain:
You’re very close to my “actual” position on the subject at the current moment; but I’m not ready to give it my full support just yet.
Someone is at the door:
I beg you to substantiate your ad hominem attack on relativism. I think absolutism is used just as often by weak-minded people: “You’re absolutely wrong, and I’m absolutely certain about that, because you’re an absolute fool who can’t see what is absolutely true about the world, whereas I am an absolute genius who can absolutely see everything that is absolute!”
Tentative:
Thanks. I like that image: we’re all adrift in a sea of potential axioms, we can grab whichever we like and let it go anytime we want, but we can’t know if we ever grab the “right” one or if there even is a “right” one.
I don’t think we disagree… but you seem to insist that relativism values logic…
Relativism ALLOWS you to value it… but relativism itself does NOT…
A = ~A = A & ~A
The above is logical gibbirish… it’s taking a HUGE dump on the law of non-contradiction…
Here you demonstrate nicely how the law of non-contradiction is non-existent in relativism…
And as we all know… the law of non.contradiction is an essential part of logic and of being rational…
Also consider this: “There are no married bachelors” how is this statement relatively true? it’s absolutely true if you ask me… How can it be relatively false?
and now… I both am and am not dancing because i both need and don’t need to goto the bathroom… lol
P.S. oh and igliashon… I hope my tone does not come off as hostile… or rideculing… I was aiming for “funny”… or “fun loving”… I apologize if i have offended…
Beggars can’t be choosers. Taking it upon oneself to be the arbiter of truth is a sign of strength, not weakness. Saying that ‘it’s all a matter of opinion’ is weak, saying ‘this is the absolute truth’ isn’t. With the former one can dismiss any attack, with the latter one takes a huge risk of being refuted and made to look an idiot. With relativism there are no idiots and geniuses, only people with equally valid perspectives.
It wasn’t an ad-hominem attack, see Tabula Rasa’s thread on ad hominem…
But the “equally valid perspectives” applies to whatever construct one chooses to work in. You may declare absolutes, and from that, decide that I’m one of the ‘idiots’, but all I have to do is say, “or not” and your only recourse is by weight of power, not of argument. Either absolutism or relativism can be used as a cop-out - and frequently are, but the only thing that can make either ‘right’ is an agreement to live within the bounds of the construct.
It would depend on the nature of your alleged idiocy as to whether I, in that circumstance, only have recourse to power, but I take your point…
Indeed. I’m not saying that the absolutists are better than the relativists and of course both are get-out clauses for the logically inept but nonetheless I maintain that it is a strong(er) mind that takes the risk of declaring something absolute…
I’m coming into this late so I will address posts in order.
igliashon wonderful picture, a simple depiction and yet quite concise.
igliashon replied to you by stating, “A=A only needs to be true for logic to work,” specifically only for a special type of formal logic that being Classical logic.
Other types of logic work perfectly well without such an assertion. Intuitionistic and Constructivist logic, though both are more-or-less the same, reject the law of the excluded middle. Paraconsistent logic, Dialetheism, Relevance logic, Linear logic, and Non-Monotonic logic all reject the law of noncontradiction. Most of these logics are being linked into both Computational and Modal logics. Aristotle’s Syllogistics worked great for the Greeks and the Dark Ages but today logic has moved beyond making such restrictive claims. Read the links for yourself and make your own conclusions. If you are not interested in reading the links, then I would gladly sum up a brief outline of how these systems reject parts of classical logic. For now I’ll move on…
PS. I love wikipedia.
Again, I only half agree with you. There is an unfortunate aspect of relativism which does function this way. From what I can see it is mostly used by those who simply want to reject the morals and beliefs of the authority/majority of the culture they exist in. They make these claims with little consideration of what they are really saying. Then there are those who wish to justify an action/belief or cultural practice/whatever by using relativism as a scapegoat but as soon as something nauseates their preconceived ideas of truth they abandon relativism without a second’s hesitation. However the other half of me disagrees so much with you that it may as well be the full 100%. There is a value to Relativism for it allows one to move beyond the restrictions of binary type thinking, absolutes are so limiting.
He’s right and most of us missed it, maybe I did too, door may have ended the discussion with that statement. I may be imposing my own interpretation but simply put we are bickering about a strictly linguistic problem and nothing more. Ironism or absolutism both end up saying nothing.
No not at all. Scientific data such as the speed of gravity is not an absolute, but something of a high probability. I may even go so far as to say that it’s a type of pragmatic absolute but only because pragmatism tosses out radical-uncertainty without really addressing it correctly.
AGREED, but asserting the existence of absolutes is also something VERY different. At this point absolutes/universals are that which can neither be asserted nor denied. To quote the last part of the Tractatus “What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.”
Hilarious! But what is with your reliance on the law of the excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction? Have you ever heard of the Jainist concept of Anekantavada (The Doctrine of Many-Sidedness)? This breaks up into two parts, the Doctrine of Maybe and of Viewpoints.
Western logic will admit only two possibilities, either A is true or A is not true. The Doctrine of Maybe allows seven possibilities.
Maybe A is true
Maybe A is not true
Maybe A is both true and not true
Maybe what A is indescribable
Maybe A is true, and is indescribable
Maybe A is not true, and is indescribable
Maybe A is true, and is not true, and is indescribable
One cannot say absolutely whether something is true or isn’t. It only exists or does not from a certain point of view, which are too complex and numerous to be included in any single statement.
The Doctrine of Viewpoints continues with this type of thinking and constructs seven ways to approach an object of truth.
A is an individual being, and an object of linguistic and mathematical importance.
A is merely a representation of the A of linguistic and mathematical importance.
A is purely an individual type of A.
A exists in the present moment.
A may be contemplated solely on its linguistic and mathematical importance.
We may view A in the conventional sense without considering its linguistic and mathematical importance.
We may view the etymology of the character A.
I bring this concept up in our conversation not to begin a thread on ancient Indian thought but to prove that a cultural mindset can exist rationally without adhering to the precepts of Classical logic as its logocentric center.
I can definitely tell you’re a big fan of Nietzsche. I agree with him completely that it seems to be the case of our world that the strong define the narrative of truths. But one could see Relativism as a tool to destabilize the position of the strong to achieve ones own goals. Usurp the throne of the old truth so to speak and replace it with another. In this type of dialectic absolutism and relativism depend on each other and cannot exist with out each other. The line is so thin, and I think PoR may have been touching on this with his original post but is far too caught up in his own world to really articulate it.
No one remains a relativist because eventually one is forced to chooses a truth if even for a moment. Most of us simply go through life with our truths and refuse to question them, but the relativist or even better the ironist has the strength to break his shackles, but even then they will adorn newer fancier ones. With the exception of maybe a few very strong willed individuals who have achieved Ataraxia like Pyrrho of Elis or enlightened Zen masters we all cling to our own truths.
That all depends on the absolute. If I maintain, absolutely and without reservation, that the universe contains infinite interpretations (as Nietzsche claimed) then one could argue that I’m far more ‘open minded’ or whatever than any relativist.
Yeah, that’s the Wittgenstein in me. There are no truly philosophical problems, only problems of language. Life on the other hand is a series of problems, but without them we as a race would get so bored that, as Houellebecq predicts will happen in the next century, suicide rates will go through the roof.
Relativism is an invisible cul-de-sac. I’m all in favour of destabilising the old language games of Being, Truth, Justice and coming up with other games to play but I don’t see relativism as being a necessary part of that whereas I can see it necessarily being obstructive to those who try to make the new games. Relativism has killed the left wing parties in France, for example…
Pyrrho rocks my world. Or rather, I cannot know whether he does or doesn’t rock my world…
This is probably the most honest thread I’ve read in a loooong time. It’s hard to believe the wordmongers haven’t risen in defiance. Mybe they’re not paying attention… Damn! I hope I didn’t jinx the party.
