shaun

No, yours doesn't. Your argument is changing the meaning of my argument. 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.

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.

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.

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.

Trying to prove a universal negative, eh?

"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.

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.

Another absolute truth claim, NC.

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.

NotConvinced

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yeah even though it's kinda fun, it's impossible by the very definition.

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.

Exactly, back in the same argument under the same constructs again, both of us are very much going around in circles I believe.

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.

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?

shaun

NC, your Protagorean philosophy simply doesn't work, though. Socrates showed it a flawed argument a long time ago:
- In your definition of relative truth, truth is relative not just to man but to any sentient being.
- Therefore you are no more of an authority about the nature of truth than is any other man or sentient being.
- If everyone is equally right about what is true, then no one is ever either ignorant or mistaken in their opinions.
- I believe that you completely wrong and in error. I think that your philosophy of relativism is false in all accounts.
- Therefore, you must grant that my belief is true.

NC, You cannot win any argument, ever, because you are no more of an authority than anyone else. All views are worthless according to relativism, since no view holds any legitimate weight above another. Truth is pointless. Opinion is everything.

I find it funny, too, that you say you believe that and still participate in a forum whose tagline is "Only the Truth Matters".


A Straw Man argument is the fallacy of refuting a misinterpreted or caricatured version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made.



They are not "true", they are "existent." There is a difference. Plus, if I see you, and still say you are 18 feet tall, then relativism must still state that "it is true for me," even though reality flies in the face of the statement. This is absurd - no one lives like this.


Which is why I'm trying to show you that your initial presuppositions and assumptions are false.

I understand your position. I just find it completely false. Do you understand that I am disagreeing with you completely? I think you do - which is why I'm not going to concede to seeing things in the view of relativism, because I find relativism false.


Let us transition to the other thread - I'm kind of tired of double-posting.

NotConvinced

Ok how could I not respond to this, lol. Wow, I'm at odds with Socrates? If anything I'll take that as a compliment. Your first statements assume "authority", "nature of truth", and "truth" itself, in the absolute sense. If you're starting on the assumption of relative truth as you claim, stick to the logical conclusions that you can logically arrive at, thus you can't deem me completely wrong and in error.

Once again, I'm lauging, because you're still assuming I'm trying to "win" in the absolute sense. I'm expressing my view, but do refer to it as an "argument" due in part to my own bias toward absolute truth. No matter how hard I try to distance myself from such a bias, I was environmentally brought up that way. The conclusion you effectively reach in your above paragraph is "All views are worthless," which isn't true, my view is worth something to me, and your to you obviously. But even further, you mean that all views are worthless in proving anything absolutely, which I deem not possible anyway. I'm saying relative truth boils down to me have my views and you yours, how is my view "pointless" to me? Truth isn't pointless as you claim. My Truth is my perception, and is hardly pointless to me. However, [Absolute] Truth is [Absolutely] pointless seems to be quite apparent if relative truth exists.

Well if Truth boils down to my perception, "Only my perception Matters" seems to be quite fair a tagline, however most viewers would attempt to stick a selfish stigma to it where none truly exists.


To my knowledge I've made no Straw Men, but the nature of our "argument" requires quite a deal of word and thought manipulation.



I understand, but the second language perception is key, we're biased toward thinking in absolute truths, even though they're illusions, we assume they exist. This is why it seems that we can't "prove" relative truth but can prove absolute truth. The simple construct of a proof hinges on the assumption of absolute truth. And ofcourse using a construct assuming absolute truth can't be used to establish relative truth. THUS, the construct of a proof is so-biased. The very construct of most of our "argument" thus far has also been biased toward absolute truth, and my attempts toward bringing the bias down have subsequently been misinterpreted as "straw men."

I'll agree that our other thread is more suitable. I just felt it worthwhile to respond here in kind.

to_hobbes

I'll need more time to read through this thread. It started as a statement about whether or not religion is important which posited for the affirmative, then blew up into a debate on the nature of morality, which I think would be best set in a different thread, but whatever, I'll just throw my opinion in.

I think religion is evil, but it is a part of our nature. It has been said before, but religion is necessary only for people who lack the mental capacity for a rigorous study of ethics. Plenty of common criminals who are basically socially retarded have been saved and become good people and functioning members of society. This is the good side of religion. However, religion gives birth to many criminals as well, greedy televangelists, child-molesting priests, and terrorists like Osama Bin-Laden or Timothy McVeigh.

Ultimately, religion is a lower level of thinking. People who can understand the various shades of gray and complexities in our society tend to pursue faith with less zeal and I think really they indulge themselves only in the not-so-evil side of religion. The not-so-evil side being for example community, friendship, and culture. I think of AB517 when I say this.

However, people who are religious but also intelligent have to be intelligent to begin with as a result of their upbringing. Religion tends to discourage intellect and critical thinking. It prevents people from learning and thus prevents people from achieving a higher level or intellect, which is how the religious entity perpetuates itself.

So while religion has several positive traits, it is ultimately something exists only to perpetuate itself, while at the same time stifling thought and innovation. This wasn't always true. Gauss and Euler were very religious some of the most intelligent mathematicians of all time. But 300 some years later in modern society, I think it is clear that Science and not religion is the way of the future. Until then, religion will continue to provide a place in peoples lives where they can pursue their selfish, arrogant, tendencies and they can be told that their selfish arrogance is a good thing, which is exactly what they want to hear.

This is not always the case of course, I want to stress that many people including AB517, and my various Christian friends and family are not like this at all.

NotConvinced

I think I'd prefer to emphasize the difference between "religion" and "organized religion."

Though judgments seem to hold less weight under relative morality.

to_hobbes

That's a good call. I agree with that.

Using that definition, I could say, "organized religion is evil" because organized religion is all politics, and only serves to make itself more powerful -- power for the sake of having power.

Where as just "religion" could mean good aspects of religion: the culture, community, and helping others through a common world view.

The only problem is, all religions seem to end up being organized, then you get two branches, the moderate branch and the extremist branch, and then both sides argue that the other side is misinterpreting the teachings that are the foundation of the religion.

NotConvinced

Yeah it seems anytime the People try to interpret perfection, they always People [****] it up. It's just our nature to.

darklord5

i think religion as a whole is bad and has only torn a part the global society. sure religion can bring people of that same religion together but conflicting religious views often led to massive conflicts.

__________________
if no one knows then no one can care.

Geshtinnanna

I think religion is important to those who need religion. It's when the religion's followers decide I need it to, do I then get annoyed.
If you are an ignorant bastard then what you will get out of religion will be tainted with your ignorant ass self. If you are a decent man, you will get that decency out of religion. It's what you put into it. If you are a non believer like I am, religion is irrelevant.

__________________