Philosophy Now Forum

Above I have disproved your and Chaz's: "we cannot add 'absolute' or 'objective' or 'universal' unless we admit the existence of these relationships between the subject and the object. ..." and so in fear you try and scramble to pick up the pieces of your facade so as to maintain your illusion. You appear to be a man of hollow words, and not a man of actual physical means.

Try and say something that is true, without demonstrating a relationship between object and subject!
When you do that then you can talk about absolute truth.
There is no argument here except your banal failure to see common sense.

So what kind if truth is it that frames 'all humans' as 'equal'. ?

That has fuck all to do with it.
That 'truth' is an assertion of an ideal. It is not in any sense true.
In fact it is palpably false.

Ahh the insults. That was a good one.
Anyways...
Chaz and I have our differences in views but it seems we are gang-banging you only because we have already fought this battle and came to see that we both understand the same issue. Our differences in views begin there.

So to reiterate Chaz: I would like you to state a fact without refering its substance to another fact.

would that be 'tree'? gravity? Me? You? thought?
computer? light?

which one of these things are fact? do they stand alone? What discussion is occurring if a fact is absolutely true?

You have not given any facts. You have typed a list of words.

Oh shit again! But hey, let's not move too quickly. (this is not a pipe). .

I thought philosophy has given us absolute truth/s with Logic? The tautologies and the contradictions. The former are always absolutely true and the latter are absolutely true in that they are always false. That they are is because they say nothing about the world(to paraphrase Wittgenstein) whereas the rest of the truths are contingent, i.e. they depend upon how things are but could always logically be other than the case.


I like this. [color=#008040]I think you hit it in that last sentence but I will reiterate:
I think the significant question that follows is: why is contradiction false? Or rather, tautology is the sigificance of truth in that what is contingent always restates the facts of the case. This situation is the state of affairs. What is the case and what is not the case are contingent, but the facts amount to the world. The world is all that is the case and the world is the totality of facts: to say that something is contigent is to restate the fact that there is the case and not the case. All derivisions of the tractatus, the extrapolated formula is tautology expanded for the state of affairs: games of language.

To suppose that contradiction takes a particular form, as that which is not the case, is indeed an expression of tautological equivalency, since, as you have said, such falsity is true. Every fact can only be true; the world is true.
Thus to rely upon contradiction to indicate a true false part of the world is to assert that aspect of the world which is silent, because there is no false part of the world, there is only facts. Hence: to assert a world within the bounds or logical parameters as you describe above is to assert a metaphysics: a false estimation of what is actually the case. It is this kind of speculation that Witt thus 'passes over in silence'. He is thus concerned with Truth by his dialectic.
[/color]




Is it that people just want one 'absolute truth' that explains everything? How? Why not just believe in a 'God' then?

I thought philosophy has given us absolute truth/s with Logic? The tautologies and the contradictions. The former are always absolutely true and the latter are absolutely true in that they are always false. That they are is because they say nothing about the world(to paraphrase Wittgenstein) whereas the rest of the truths are contingent, i.e. they depend upon how things are but could always logically be other than the case.

Is it that people just want one 'absolute truth' that explains everything? How? Why not just believe in a 'God' then?

Above I have disproved your and Chaz's: "we cannot add 'absolute' or 'objective' or 'universal' unless we admit the existence of these relationships between the subject and the object. ..." and so in fear you try and scramble to pick up the pieces of your facade so as to maintain your illusion. You appear to be a man of hollow words, and not a man of actual physical means.

Try and say something that is true, without demonstrating a relationship between object and subject!
When you do that then you can talk about absolute truth.
There is no argument here except your banal failure to see common sense.

I have, throughout the course of this argument, you're just incapable of understanding, because your presumption, you believe, precludes my argument, actually your presumption, precludes your understanding of my argument.

Where Chaz and I depart from our agreement is I tend to view effects, where Chaz tends to view effects as maintaining the problem - which is to say absolutely eternally. Thus a long time ago I said you and Chaz are arguing the same : to absolute true objects. Chaz though relies on what I call a type of discursive sight if hand to avoid positing absolute. Thus he says: You Are Wrong. But the effect is the same.
He and I have not broke this stalemate.

This is not the case. All you have done is fallen into the trap that I set for you, because your statement demonstrates a relationship between object and subject, you are bound to fail again and again.
It is not that my understanding precludes your position; it is your own presentation of what you think is true that destroys your argument. You are incapable os escaping your own subject, unless you are God. But the that is exactly what you think you are.

The trap is in your mind and it pertains to language. Your logic is flawed. The subject has and does escape itself relative to time, such is the result of the scientific method, such that it is absolute truth over time, so as we have come to know, of some of the absolute truths of some objects, not all, but some of the more simpler ones.

Yeah that is what Ptolemy said when he wrote the final word on his geocentric cosmology.


You are caught up in a circular vortex of language, and thus reasoning, it has ensnared you. Mans God has absolutely nothing to do with it. It is you that believes himself a god, as with the immature tactics you employ when faced with not getting your way.[/color]