^ a great example of one of the many ways philosophers use the word ‘absolute’ in abstract statements which can demonstrate nothing, and certainly don’t disqualify the meaning of ‘absolute’ in the many ways we use the word unphilosophically.
ever read the wiki article on: the philosophical meaning of the word ‘absolute’? these knuckleheads can’t even agree with each other… neither the philosophers arguing for, or against it. so if there is clearly a problem with what this word means, why can’t they agree on what that problem is? maybe because there is no problem?
“Philosophers constantly see the method of science before their eyes, and they are irresistibly tempted to ask and answer questions in the way science does. This tendency is the real source of metaphysics, and leads the philosopher into complete darkness.” - wittgenstein
okay, let’s take for granted what’s said in that quote above. would i be wrong to say it is absolutely the case that things are changeable, divisible, and pluralistic? such a use of the word ‘absolute’ would not be nonsensical, and nothing has changed about its meaning… only the things that are meant with its use. the question then is not ‘is the concept of ‘absolute’ meaningless’, but rather ‘where can the word be used meaningfully as a matter of fact, and without any conceptual difficulty.’
‘this cake is absolutely delicious!’
philosopher: ‘stop! not only is that cake changing as you chew it, but the ionized potassium particles that cause the dendrites to fire, creating the sensation of ‘good taste’, are also undergoing entropic change, so the resulting qualia of ‘good taste’ isn’t the same as it was a moment ago. in fact, the cake is now not absolutely delicious, and you’re an insufferable liar! and that’s not to mention the fact that because it’s logically possible for the cake to taste better than it does, it can’t ever be absolutely delicious, you imbecile!’
‘but i… i was just enjoying the cake, man. jesus christ.’
“The essential thing about metaphysics is that it blurs the distinction between factual and conceptual investigations.” - wittgenstein
and yet if you approach a philosopher with this insight, he’ll charge you with playing word-games. lol! unbeknownst to him, he is so completely submerged in a word-game that he is unable to recognize anything but word-games.