Beenajain wrote:
‘For us to have a discussion we don’t need to communicate at all because people can be silent and still communicate’
I don’t understand this at all, your argument doesn’t seem to lead to the conclusion ‘your absolute truth is not absolute’
The ‘absolute truth’ in all of this is that meaning is a persistent possibility.
I can’t believe you say that as if it is fact. Thats a belief, and its one you seem to hold strongly to, but in no way is that a fact, or a statement that can ever be proven.
[Edit] I agree with our knowledge of it changes.
Rounder wrote:
I can’t prove that the universe has always existed and will always exist, but nor can you disprove it. Or, to make it less personal, neither of us can come up with a conclusive case either way.
So the question, as with all metaphysics, is why should we believe the universe has or hasn’t always existed?
ummm…
if we are silent but still communicating then we are still communicating aren’t we??? whether through body language speaking or anything …for us to have a discussion we need to communicate
if you were just thinking to yourself …you wouldn’t be discussing, you .since a discussion going on this definition discussion:Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation.
since there are not two people involved you wouldn’t be discussing…or i can just change around what I said to…For us to have a discussion we need to have communicated
is that an absolute truth?