Relativism and Transcendental Truth or 'Absolute Relativism'

[Alpha_Omega]

@Three Times Great

@Alpha+Omega

The problem I would have with TTG’s philosophy is that there is no objective reality, no persepective can offer access to it, and therefore ‘anything goes’.

you are confounding the nature of reality with human value judgments and emotion. the fact that there is nothing absolutely objective (no objective reality) does not mean “anything goes”. it means that the word “objective” only refers to something beyond the bounds/limits/influence/importance/dependence of something else.

something is objective only in reference to something else (i.e. to that from which the objectivity derives). that is why all objectivity is subjective. that which is objective is objective TO SOMETHING ELSE, from the perspective of another. this means that there is no way to understand an “absolute” objectivity or an “absolute” reality. all things enter into relations, and are therefore subjectively defined/understood. a truly absolute objectivity would enter into no relations at all, but even if this were somehow the case (it is not, because to be so would entail contradiction) then “objective” would have no meaning with regard to that thing itself: objective to what? to nothing. the entire concept of objective fails.

all objectivity is subjectively defined/understood. absolute objectivity is impossible.

“absolute relativism” is impossible as well, as it is merely an oxymoron.

Tanscendence is going beyond all perspectival limits.

and you say youre not making a hegelian argument…

‘Absolute Relativism’ appears to be an oxymoron, in fact it is not. You have not understood.

Human value judgemetns and emotion are part of reality and are already confounded.

You do not own the word objective. The word objective does not only mean ‘object’ as in the subject verb and object structure of a sentence. You are confusing reality with grammar.

All objectivity is subjective to the point of view of a human. Not to itself. How could objectivity be subjective to itself. lol.

You are a solipsist.

Absolute objectivity is true.

From all your other posts on this website I know fine that anything goes with you.

[Three_Times_Great]

@Alpha+Omega

‘Absolute Relativism’ appears to be an oxymoron, in fact it is not. You have not understood.

Human value judgemetns and emotion are part of reality and are already confounded.

so your so-called “absolutely objective” reality itself is necessarily dependent on human value judgment and emotions… interesting.

You do not own the word objective. The word objective does not only mean ‘object’ as in the subject verb and object structure of a sentence. You are confusing reality with grammar.

if human values and emotions are part of reality, then why is human grammar not also a part of reality?

hypocrite?

All objectivity is subjective to the point of view of a human. Not to itself. How could objectivity be subjective to itself. lol.

just like hegel and other anthropocentrists, you elevate human concepts and words to extrahuman levels beyond man himself… “transcendent” “Being” “God” “objective” its all the same bullshit.

i already explained that without something to be objective to (i.e. something beyond itself), objectivity is meaningless. it is this necessary other to which “pure” objectivity is subjective.

objectivity “in itself” is a contradiction in terms, just like all “in itself”'s that anthropocentric mystics create in order to elevate human consciousness back to its rightful place at the center of creation.

You are a solipsist.

nope. your quasihegelianism is, however. [-o<

i posit external reality subjective to itself, each part relatively (and necessarily) subjective to others… you posit reality as objective “in itself”, somehow independent of itself…

Absolute objectivity is true.

From all your other posts on this website I know fine that anything goes with you.

you should know by now that youll get nowhere with such ad hom dodges with me, then. neither with blind assertions such as “absolute objectivity is true”. defend your point; or, if you cant, because ive falsified everything youve said here and shown how the notion of absolute objectivity is a self-contradiction, then feel free to spew more personal diatribe in an attempt to distract from your inability to form a concrete argument, or a coherent reply to mine.

[uglypeoplefucking]

@Alpha+Omega

Tanscendence is going beyond all perspectival limits.

Why, then, is this necessarry in order to posit that the absolute is relative and the relative absolute?

[Alpha_Omega]

@Three Times Great

@Alpha+Omega

‘Absolute Relativism’ appears to be an oxymoron, in fact it is not. You have not understood.

Human value judgemetns and emotion are part of reality and are already confounded.

1. so your so-called “absolutely objective” reality itself is necessarily dependent on human value judgment and emotions… interesting.

You do not own the word objective. The word objective does not only mean ‘object’ as in the subject verb and object structure of a sentence. You are confusing reality with grammar.

2. if human values and emotions are part of reality, then why is human grammar not also a part of reality?

hypocrite?

All objectivity is subjective to the point of view of a human. Not to itself. How could objectivity be subjective to itself. lol.

3. just like hegel and other anthropocentrists, you elevate human concepts and words to extrahuman levels beyond man himself… “transcendent” “Being” “God” “objective” its all the same bullshit.

i already explained that without something to be objective to (i.e. something beyond itself), objectivity is meaningless. it is this necessary other to which “pure” objectivity is subjective.

objectivity “in itself” is a contradiction in terms, just like all “in itself”'s that anthropocentric mystics create in order to elevate human consciousness back to its rightful place at the center of creation.

You are a solipsist.

4. nope. your quasihegelianism is, however. [-o<

i posit external reality subjective to itself, each part relatively (and necessarily) subjective to others… you posit reality as objective “in itself”, somehow independent of itself…

Absolute objectivity is true.

From all your other posts on this website I know fine that anything goes with you.

5. you should know by now that youll get nowhere with such ad hom dodges with me, then. neither with blind assertions such as “absolute objectivity is true”. defend your point; or, if you cant, because ive falsified everything youve said here and shown how the notion of absolute objectivity is a self-contradiction, then feel free to spew more personal diatribe in an attempt to distract from your inability to form a concrete argument, or a coherent reply to mine.

1. Only to be known beyond self-knowledge.
2. Wat. 'tis a part mon frere.
3. I see nothing logically valid in this part.
4. You cannot comprehend infinity. Trust me.
5. The only thing secular relativity can adequately falsify is itself, to try to refute ‘absolute objectivity is true’ is laughable, but not as amusing as is the unawareness that the same attempt at refutation amounts to solipsism.

[Alpha_Omega]

@uglypeoplefucking

@Alpha+Omega

Tanscendence is going beyond all perspectival limits.

Why, then, is this necessarry in order to posit that the absolute is relative and the relative absolute?

Because ‘the absolute is relative and the relative absolute’ is a perspective open to misunderstanding as illustrated by TPG.

[Three_Times_Great]

@Alpha+Omega

1. Only to be known beyond self-knowledge.

this doesnt even say anything at all.

2. Wat. 'tis a part mon frere.

you initially said otherwise, changing your tone now?

3. I see nothing logically valid in this part.

im sure you dont.

4. You cannot comprehend infinity. Trust me.

of course not. neither can you. its a false concept.

5. The only thing secular relativity can adequately falsify is itself, to try to refute ‘absolute objectivity is true’ is laughable, but not as amusing as is the unawareness that the same attempt at refutation amounts to solipsism.

good thing im not arguing for secular relativity then.

[uglypeoplefucking]

@Alpha+Omega

@uglypeoplefucking

@Alpha+Omega

Tanscendence is going beyond all perspectival limits.

Why, then, is this necessarry in order to posit that the absolute is relative and the relative absolute?

Because ‘the absolute is relative and the relative absolute’ is a perspective open to misunderstanding as illustrated by TPG.

all perspectives are open to misunderstanding, and misunderstandings are corrected all the time without going beyond perspectival limits - a misunderstanding and a misperception are really the same thing