|
|
Re: ...
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78524
09/14/06 21:13
09/14/06 21:13
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
In some ways, black is the opposite of white. Just because we assign words to these colors, doesn't mean that black and white don't exist. It just means that we, in our limited capacity, need such constructs to understand the world.
No, it's not that black and white at all. What's black? When do you say dark grey is infact black? Which dark grey-black is the opposite of white? Okey, it's a bit unfair, but colors have no opposites. What's the opposite of purple? Only light against no light or 'dark', but not black versus white. These constructs are relative as h*ll, they are what we make them to be and may not represent the truth. The color blue is blue because we say so, not because it is. Yes, a color may exist, but it's not blue because it is blue, but because we agreed to call it blue.
Quote:
Perhaps, but I think that's beyond where I'd like the focus to be. But, the way I see it, its our understanding of Truth that's relative, not truth itself.
The truth we know, is the truth we think we understand, stating there's more to it, some sort of real truth won't get us nowhere, since we don't know that. We can't determine wether or not our truth is the same anyway, so that alone means it's relative to what we know. This absolute truth you are talking about only exists in theory, not in practise and reality. There's no way you could say which is the right and therefore absolute truth of anything.
Quote:
A green light is green, whether or not the viewer observes it as green.
This sounds like a nice claim to go and prove, but you can't. Infact, what we see comes first, according to what we see, we define it's color, after that we call it a green light, not the other way around. The proof of this? Well, dig a few big holes in the ground and ask people to explain what color they see. Some may say it's dark brown yellowish dirt, others may say yellow grey brown dirt. Who's right?
You may think it's the interpretation that's relative, and it is indeed, however the interpretation that we agree upon will become the 'truth'. Colors therefore can't be absolute.
Quote:
Then that would be an absolute and you would just have proved that absolutes exist.
I'm not trying to make fun of you, but you still don't get it. If something is true, then it's still not necessarily absolute. Infact, I would say quite the contrary, since like I said before, truth is based upon what we know and that's limited and thus relative.
Quote:
However, I can prove that absolutes must exist (even if we don't know what they are) by proving that relativism is false. Therefore, I'm trying to prove relativism is false.
Which is a rather impossible task. Even if you could prove relativism is false, however you'd do that is a mystery to me, but then you still haven't proven absolutes exist. It's like infinity, in order to proof that you'd need to see the whole of infinity or be able to show it, not just explain the concept. There already have been numerous occasions on which it turned out that our 'past truths' were invalid and new discoveries have led us to believe in different truths, infact these kind of developments are going on constantly, again the biggest proof for relativism is out there, right in front of us. It's called 'reality'. lol ...
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: ...
[Re: PHeMoX]
#78525
09/17/06 20:19
09/17/06 20:19
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
No, it's not that black and white at all. What's black? When do you say dark grey is infact black? Which dark grey-black is the opposite of white? Okey, it's a bit unfair, but colors have no opposites.
What I had in mind while making that statement was colors on a computer. 0,0,0 would be black, and 255,255,255 would be white. In a way its opposite. Besides, it was just an example.
Quote:
The color blue is blue because we say so, not because it is.
A rose by any other name is still a rose.
You're right, the construct, the language, the symbolism is relative. But what the construct is constructed around is not relative. 'Blue' is just a term we give to a certain wavelength or frequency or whatever. The physics of color don't change based on what name we give the color, so it is therefore absolute. Science has proved this, and the burden of proof is then on you to prove that somehow your philosophy doesn't contradict what we empirically know to be true.
Quote:
There's no way you could say which is the right and therefore absolute truth of anything.
I can logically prove that there are absolute truths. I can scientifically prove that the universe is based on many absolutes (in the above statements we were discussing the language used to describe the wavelength of light, although we could really name it whatever we want, the wavelength itself is absolute).
As far as figuring out what the truth is, I would agree that humans are not the source of absolute truth.
Quote:
This sounds like a nice claim to go and prove, but you can't.
So you're honestly going to sit there and tell me that the wavelength or frequency or whatever of light will change depending upon who's viewing it?
Quote:
Well, dig a few big holes in the ground and ask people to explain what color they see. Some may say it's dark brown yellowish dirt, others may say yellow grey brown dirt. Who's right?
If our eyes are working properly, we'll all see the same color even if we describe it differently. So your example is not only inadequate, but proves my point.
Quote:
You may think it's the interpretation that's relative, and it is indeed, however the interpretation that we agree upon will become the 'truth'. Colors therefore can't be absolute.
Although our interpretations are relative, as long as they fall somewhere near the 'truth', we can communicate correctly about what color it is.
Quote:
I'm not trying to make fun of you, but you still don't get it. If something is true, then it's still not necessarily absolute. Infact, I would say quite the contrary, since like I said before, truth is based upon what we know and that's limited and thus relative.
You do understand the difference between providing logic, and providing an opinion don't you? You've shown time and time again that your premise is based upon faulty logic that you refuse to admit to. Therefore, any conclusions you come to will be faulty by the nature of your logic.
Besides that, most of what you're doing is repeating opinion. You still haven't even provided the most basic of logic to prove that relativism is non contradictory.
Besides, just because we can't always figure out what truth is correctly, doesn't mean that truth is then not relative. You're making a leap of logic there. I would agree with you that humans all have different interpretations of the truth, but that doesn't mean that there is no absolute truth and until you establish that, you have no argument.
Quote:
Which is a rather impossible task. Even if you could prove relativism is false
I have, several times now. I've just said that if relativism is a universal absolute, as you believe, then that means that all truth isn't relative and relativism is then false. Which opens the door to all kinds of absolutes. The logic is sound, and you've provided no counter-logic, except to state that you disagree, and then give examples of people giving relative interpretations of absolute things. Which only proves that people don't always know what's right, not that they could never know what's right.
Reality, in fact, proves that relativism is false. If relativism was true and nothing in the universe was absolute, science, mathematics, logic, and even physical reality itself would not exist. You have no way to explain their existence, and your philosophy has even caused you to make several incorrect statements concerning these things. For instance, you thinking that mathematics is a human construct (whereas the principles are founded in reality, and the symbology, language, etc are human constructs used so that the mind can grasp these things).
Since your premise is based on faulty logic, you are using irrelevant examples, and your philosophy has incorrectly intrepreted reality, its easy to conclude that your philosophy is false.
Unless you can use some kind of counter-logic (which according to you doesn't really exist) or you can find some new argument that isn't irrelevant, you're just wasting time.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 09/17/06 20:21.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: ...
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78526
09/17/06 22:19
09/17/06 22:19
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Pappenheimer
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
|
Quote:
If relativism was true and nothing in the universe was absolute
"If relativism was true"
and
"nothing in the universe was absolute"
are two different statements, and it is not the fault of others that you can't see the difference.
It is your problem that you state that relativism is an absolute statement, not that of relativistic thinking people. A statement isn't necessarily absolute. It is only your claim.
|
|
|
Re: ...
[Re: Pappenheimer]
#78527
09/18/06 01:04
09/18/06 01:04
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
"If relativism was true"
and
"nothing in the universe was absolute"
are two different statements, and it is not the fault of others that you can't see the difference.
Excuse me. "If relativism is true and truth is relative." That's basically what I meant. Now if you're going to tell me that the accepted definition of relativism is wrong because its devastating to your philosophy, then do me a favor and don't waste my time.
Quote:
It is your problem that you state that relativism is an absolute statement, not that of relativistic thinking people. A statement isn't necessarily absolute. It is only your claim.
I don't think its an absolute statement. In fact, I only believe its relatively true. For some people, relativism is true. But just because its relatively true doesn't mean it isn't absolutely false. 
Anyway, I'm only using your guys' arguments. Either you're a relativist and you think that relativism is a universal truth (an absolute), or you're not and even if you don't know what they are, you admit there are absolutes.
The best position you can take is that even though there are absolutes, we can never know what they are, so we should just give up and live with the knowledge that we're left with our own relative constructs of truth. Including morals. However, a fundamental belief in relativism is nothing but intellectually false, or just plain dishonest. Whether or not you're willing to admit it.
Besides, this is yet another post by a relativist where nothing but an opinion is stated. I would love, just once, for one of you to actually back up your opinion with some logic or reasoning, instead of just stating your opposition to my view.
P.S. its seems to me that you're trying to establish that relativism is only relatively true. But that's actually true of my absolutist philosophy. To me, I see some people who agree with relativism and some who don't. So its relatively true, but absolutely false. In the sense that while its the truth for some people, its still a false philosophy because humans are fallible and can believe things that aren't true.
You might not like the sound of that, but consider the fact that you take similar positions if only subconsciously. To you, even though Naziism was the truth for Hitler and the nazis, you know it to be wrong.
This goes back to some of my earlier statements. I'm sure you guys do believe in absolutes (Naziism is wrong, slavery is wrong, etc), its just that you want to be the ones to decide what those absolutes are (i.e. man determines truth, not God). Of course, that's just my opinion, so feel free to disagree if you want.
edit: Let me try and get you into a logic train that will expose the fallicy of your argument. I'll start with this statement.
Quote:
I'm not trying to make fun of you, but you still don't get it. If something is true, then it's still not necessarily absolute. Infact, I would say quite the contrary, since like I said before, truth is based upon what we know and that's limited and thus relative.
Ok, so to you relativism isn't absolutely true, truth is just what man determines it to be but it never gets above that level. Its all relative.
Now, I take the opposite position, i.e. there are absolutes which directly opposes what you believe. So the only thing keeping my opinion from overriding yours is that its only relatively true (to me). Do you believe this?
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 09/18/06 01:16.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
|
