The ONLY ABSOLUTE TRUTHS

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Janus, I am arguing by YOUR own logic here.

Did you NOT say that [B]Reality is all relative to the person observing it?

did you not also say that 1 + 1 = 2 is not a fact, but a PRODUCT based on RULES?

And did you not also say that Rules depend on the Reality behind them ?

If I am mistaken on your points, then I severely apologize and would kindly ask you to clarify your stance on what Reality is and what Rules actually are in relation to "facts".

If 1+1=2 , is not a fact, but only a product of rules (like you've stated yourself) then how can we be so sure about the reality behind these rules, if reality is only relative to our observation of such things? You know that observation is variable to all eyes.

You are also forgetting that numbers do not exist by themselves. Every value (1, 0, 2, N, X, Y, 3, 4.5) is always representative of an object. All I am saying is when you replace and object with a numeral, you ahve to be "absolutely"-that damn word again- Certain that the objects the numerals represent are in fact equal to each other in all ways.

You are basically saying that Math is an Absolute Truth, and you are suggesting that Math is independent of real-life examples. You said there is no "Absolute Truth", since one would need to acqure absolute knowledge to know absolute truth. You seem to be contradicting yourself there. You are also suggesting, according to my intepretation of what you are saying, that Math can exist without having to represent anything else but ITSELF. Please correct me if I am misunderstood here, thank you.

If there is no "absolute truth" like you said there is none that can be said to be so far, then Math and its rules cannot be absolute truth either according to your logic. If this is the case, and there is no absolute then Exceptions exist most likely.

As for our interesting "CHANGE is the only constant" debate:

So far we have come to the conclusion, or atleast I think I have, that a true "constant" does not exist.

According to your definition a constant is "unchangable and invariable"...so let us forget my other examples, like tradition, etc. because they are not true constants.

Also you are saying that just because something is continuous, does NOT mean it is not constant. Okay let's argue through that logic:

Can you think of any Constant that has existed from as far back in the Past, up to TODAY, that will remain constant until the "end" of time?

I beleive Change to be the only "constant"...."Ahhh Lord Urizen...u just dont get it do you ????" 😠

Yes, i do let me explain:

For Change to be different from ITSELf, there would have to be a LACK of change. Change would have to cease to be. Therefore "Change" is changed into another concept- non change.

Would that turn Change into it's "opposite" which is a "constant" ? In some logical perspectives, YES.

But look at it this way: A constant according to your definition displayed is "unchangable", is TRUE to itself, it will remain as IS, it will not change what it actually is.

Change can ONLY BE UNCHANGING and TRUE TO ITSELF if it REMAINS as it IS: Change. IF Change becomes a non-change, then it is changingitself , meaning that this would render it a non-constant.

So...Change is only a non-constant if it becomes non-change.

Therefore, through other logic, one can say "The only true constant is change".

Janus, thank you for giving such a challenge of a debate. No one has ever forced me to think and question THIS MUCH. Thank you for that ! 🙂 [/B]

You type a LOT. Or maybe it just looks big because it's really spaced a lot. Anyways, I do intend to address this, hopefully later tonight. And you're welcome for any challenge I can provide. My mother always said I was a pain in the ass. Now we know why.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Hey everybody. I think that these two facts are the only Undeniable truths that exist. I don't beleive religion, science, or any other source of information can disprove this:

1) There is an Exception to everything.

2) The only constant is change.

What do you guys think ?

That there is an exception to the fact that the only constant is change???

And that something has not been disproven does not make it a fact.
Otherwise I'll hereby claim some reindeer can fly and challenge you to prove me wrong!

haha YES! The flying reindeer theory! I missed that one, it's been a while. WOOT!

Originally posted by The Omega
That there is an exception to the fact that the only constant is change???

And that something has not been disproven does not make it a fact.
Otherwise I'll hereby claim some reindeer can fly and challenge you to prove me wrong!

Hence why i sed " I THINK" Omega.

Me and Janus already have been having this debate. Read what we've been arguing, to try and avoid re asking me the same question. I know reading all of it will be a real pain in the ass, but trust me...its worth it.

And ALSO

First belief i RE-worded

"There is an exception to every rule"

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Hey everybody. I think that these two facts are the only Undeniable truths that exist. I don't beleive religion, science, or any other source of information can disprove this:

1) There is an Exception to everything.

2) The only constant is change.

What do you guys think ?

EDIT: Just saw the last post, but my argument still stands. "There is an exception to every rule" is a rule.

Anyone for a round of, "This sentence is false"?

jerry

What intrigues me most about these Relativism vs Absolutism debates is: What is the objection to having absolutes? What is the appeal of "Everything is relative?" Why does it have to be one way or the other? Isn't that kind of an oversimplification?

I can't help but get the impression that "anti-absolutism" reflects a stance believed to be enlightened, because it implies an openness of mind which has often been lacking in the last, and which has often led to negative consequences.

Originally posted by Eis
If there is an exception to everything, how can there be such thing as an absolute truth?
Your statement contradicts itself. If there is an exception to everything there is an exception to the statement "there is an exception for everything" meaning there has to be cases in which there are no exceptions. Meaning your logic is flawed.

EDIT: Just saw the last post, but my argument still stands. "There is an exception to every rule" is a rule.

These are just what I beleive, I have no way to prove it, just like you have no way to disprove it. This is all about what I and you guys beleive to be the case.

If you look at both statements, they BOTH contradict themselves. Again, like i sed to Janus they are more metaphoric truths than literal ones.

Since the words are contradicting, you can't take it in a literal sense.

Read the debate between me and Janus, and my stance will make a lot more sense. I don't feel like re writing it all.

And a big Nope.

" there is an exception to every rule" is not a rule itself. There is no official rule stating this, it is just a beleif. So for an exception to be present here, the exception would have to be against the beleif, and there are always exceptions to every beleif.

And lets just say for arguments sake it was a rule, and there is an exception to even this one, then this being a rule has an exception, and even if it is contradicting itself, it is paradoxically proving itself true as well.

If there is an absolute truth, it would have to be that soon we all be dead.

Originally posted by Philip_ll
If there is an absolute truth, it would have to be that soon we all be dead.

That's assuming we actually exist. LOL ask Janus.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
That's assuming we actually exist. LOL ask Janus.

You can't be sure you exist....although I find it weird that Janus used to tell me I should quit with that kind of thought before.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
These are just what I beleive, I have no way to prove it, just like you have no way to disprove it.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
'Cognito ergo sum'.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually that is not quite true...Eis jsut did disprove your statement, simple logic.

Nope. He disproved nothing. Read the debate between me and Janus, RE read what I wrote to Eis, and then tell me I've been disproved.

Lets look at this for a second:

"1) There is an Exception to everything."

Okay, lets assume it isn't true, well then we can stop talking about it, since it wouldn't be true, and therefore not an absolute truth.

Now assume it is actually true that would mean that there is an exception to everything, so there is an exception to "1) There is an Exception to everything.", if there is an exception to "1) There is an Exception to everything." then it isn't an absolute truth.

It's a paradox. SO what you said there is certainly not an absolute truth, even more it is a paradox.

Same for "There is an exception to every rule", because "There is an exception to every rule" is in fact a rule by itself. So the same applies. Get it? Good. Can we move on?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Hence why i sed " I THINK" Omega.

Me and Janus already have been having this debate. Read what we've been arguing, to try and avoid re asking me the same question. I know reading all of it will be a real pain in the ass, but trust me...its worth it.

You, my dear, need to develop a sense of humour! ✅

Originally posted by Mindship
Anyone for a round of, "This sentence is false"?

jerry

What intrigues me most about these Relativism vs Absolutism debates is: What is the objection to having absolutes? What is the appeal of "Everything is relative?" Why does it have to be one way or the other? Isn't that kind of an oversimplification?

Living in a world of absolutes is EASY.
“I am right, you are wrong.” “You are with me, or against me.” “I love you or I hate you.” There is no room for the fact, that life is lived in the grey zone between white and black. Or as a wise woman once told me, “life is not lived at either 1 or 10. Life is lived between 2 and 9.”
Absolutism is dangerous because it is on the threshold of fundamentalism, where certain things “just are that way, period” and not up for discussion.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Nope. He disproved nothing. Read the debate between me and Janus, RE read what I wrote to Eis, and then tell me I've been disproved.

Sorry, Urizen, but EIS did disprove your logic:

Originally posted by Eis
If there is an exception to everything, how can there be such thing as an absolute truth?
Your statement contradicts itself. If there is an exception to everything there is an exception to the statement "there is an exception for everything" meaning there has to be cases in which there are no exceptions. Meaning your logic is flawed.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
There is no absolute truths we possess, because we do not have access to absolute knowledge.

👆

I think this should have, in theory killed the conversation in this thread.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
👆

I think this should have, in theory killed the conversation in this thread.

Well, people could still fantasize about what might be an absolute truth...after all, isn't that what philosophy is about?

Originally posted by The Omega
Absolutism is dangerous because it is on the threshold of fundamentalism, where certain things “just are that way, period” and not up for discussion.

That was my thinking.

Are all fundamentalists absolutists, by definition? Because I don't think all absolutists are fundamentalists. Fundamentalism breeds a specific kind of absolutism (religionistic, moralistic), but absolutism, in its broadest, philosophical sense, is more than that.

However, IMO, as an overreaction to the closed-mindedness of the past, Absolute Relativism is as dangerous (and self-contradicting), for it sees all behaviors/ways of living as having equal value.

Originally posted by Mindship
That was my thinking.

Are all fundamentalists absolutists, by definition? Because I don't think all absolutists are fundamentalists. Fundamentalism breeds a specific kind of absolutism (religionistic, moralistic), but absolutism, in its broadest, philosophical sense, is more than that.

However, IMO, as an overreaction to the closed-mindedness of the past, Absolute Relativism is as dangerous (and self-contradicting), for it sees all behaviors/ways of living as having equal value.

Fundamentalists may not be absolute about everything in their lives... It's more like a subset of their values have become SO absolute they may NOT be questioned or debated.
I don't think anyone IS a total absolutist (is that a word)?
ANd isn't Absolute Relativism a contradiction of terms? Beliveing EVERYTHING is relative (the speed of light isn't) and that everything MUST be questioned and debated just clouds a debate, I think.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Who's incognito?

Dunno.

Originally posted by The Omega
Fundamentalists may not be absolute about everything in their lives... It's more like a subset of their values have become SO absolute they may NOT be questioned or debated.
I don't think anyone IS a total absolutist (is that a word)?
ANd isn't Absolute Relativism a contradiction of terms? Beliveing EVERYTHING is relative (the speed of light isn't) and that everything MUST be questioned and debated just clouds a debate, I think.

I think its good that everything be questioned, this tends to eliminate...or atleast reduce...ignorance, which I believe is the cause of all evil.