Quote:
Originally Posted by shaun  Your argument is changing the meaning of my argument. |
In a sense yes, because you want me to prove relative morality. I can't prove something relative in the constructs of absolutes. The very meaning of the word proof is the contructing of an absolute.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaun I am stating that there are certain truths that are always true no matter the context or perspective. You are saying that truth is always relative. Those are two mutually exclusive claims. If one is true, the other is false. To simply say they both fit is wrong, because that's not what I'm saying. |
They are very much mutually exclusive in the absolute sense, but can both exist in the relative sense. Since you are very much used to logically coming to terms with things in the absolute sense, I understand that you're having problems doing the same with ideas in the relative sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaun Again, I am saying that there are certain truths which are absolutely true in all cases. You are doing a Straw Man on my argument to get it to fit into your argument. |
Can you define Straw Man in your terms so that I might not misunderstand it as you see fit, if I were to look it up on my own. Also, I believe our arguments always have been, very much on the grounds of definitions and contructs. The supposed fact that I can't prove relative truth. But if relative truth exists then I can't "prove anything" absolutely....ofcourse not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaun But if there is not absolute truth, then it doesn't matter if you think it's "right or wrong" because nothing is absolutely right or wrong. It's all opinion. Nothing is wrong. Nothing is right. All is meaningless. |
I believe you're more on course with this line of thinking, we agree here, although we attribute meaning to everything on our own, and often attribute more or less meaning when faced with comparisons.
Quote:
|
If you think I'm 18 feet tall, it's true for you.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaun No, it's not. I am wrong. It does not "make it true" - that sentence makes no sense; it simply means "I believe that you're 18 feet tall." The truth of whether or not you are 18 feet tall is inherent in reality - if you are actually 18 feet tall or not. |
If you have not, nor will ever see me and how tall I am, then your belief that I'm 18 feet tall is true for you. In relative truth all your thoughts are essentially true (in the relative sense not the absolute sense). It's quite hard to keep trying to argue for relativity in the construct of absolutes, that's very frankly, why we've been having so much trouble. If we ended our argument right here, I'd feel fulfilled on the grounds of understanding why we couldn't go further.
Quote:
|
If the very definition of Relative truth means that truth changes, then the definition of truth must change, and it will never be absolute.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaun Trying to prove a universal negative, eh?  |
Yeah even though it's kinda fun, it's impossible by the very definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaun "Truth will never be absolute."
That's quite an absolute claim, there, NC. "Never" means not in any case, regardless of others' opinions or perceptions of it. |
I could argue for relativity here as well, saying that, that statement had to made by someone, who was expressing their view. Because if there were no absolutes, and someone wouldn't be expressing someone elses view accurately, they would be expressing their own. The claim would be completely relative. Inherent in relative truth is tacking on a "I believe" onto the beginning of everything that would be considered as an absolute claim by you.
Quote:
|
Therefor, when I say "false is true," the false that I'm referring to changes the definition of the true, therefor I don't have to first assume that true is always true.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaun To use the word "therefore", you must first assume that there is a prior statement that is true. You, however, are stating that a contradiction exists, and therefore you cannot use the word therefore.
If true is not always true, then there is no way to define true as false, because false has no meaning outside of an absolute true. |
Exactly, back in the same argument under the same constructs again, both of us are very much going around in circles I believe.
Quote:
|
Thus, the law of non-contradiction ceases to exist at all.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaun Another absolute truth claim, NC. |
Basically the attempt at showing relative truth as the chief truth would lead to the non-contradiction law ceasing to exist, and is only hindered on the grounds of the contructs of the argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaun And again, to say something existed is to assume it did exist at one point. To say something ceased to exist is to assume it truly existed, therefore granting it truth in reality. |
I'm sure you understand how difficult it is to bridge the gap between the perception of absolutes we live in right now, and the perception of relatives that truly exists. Such a gap is UNDERLINED in a criticism of that very sentence I just wrote. It's like we're trying to argue something, but doing it in two seperate languages. Or even worse, I've failed to create the language adequate enough to express what I want to say. But even if I did or could, such a language barrier would greatly hinder any progress.
Am I making sense to some extent or am I failing in even the attempt to help you understand the second language perception?