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."