Ken you're not understanding my rant.
Parts of your rant I understand. The other less informative, off track parts I find difficult to follow and understand. But not to worry. You will share that information if you want to.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Because I'm relatively old, much of my rants contain, (between the lines), truths that I believe to be self evident, (so I leave them out), if someone misses those, they often miss the entire thing.
How do you expect us to not miss, what you leave out? I, for one, have no idea whatsoever what the truths that you believe to be self evident if you do not tell me firstly. It helps us all if you put in the things you believe to be self evident, then we can grasp better what it is that you are saying and talking about exactly.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: I believe that universally, there is no such thing as relative truth. Those things which people call relative truth's are actually falsehoods, not containing truth whatsoever. Understand?
I understand that what you say is you believe that universally there is no such thing as relative truth. And, you also believe those things which people call relative truths are actually falsehoods, which do not contain truth whatsoever. So yes I understand that is what you believe, however, in one sentence you say there is no such thing as relative truth, but then you say in the next sentence those things that people call relative truths are actually falsehoods, which contain no truth whatsoever.
Firstly, is there relative truth or not?
Secondly, would not falsehoods just be, falsehoods? Why do you call falsehoods "those things which people call relative truths"?
Thirdly, on looking, 'relative truth' has a few differing definitions. Maybe you could explain what you mean when you write relative truth?
Fourthly, why do say that universally
there is no such thing as relative truth? Are you thinking that if you use the word universally, then that somehow makes "it", whatever words come next, absolute truth?
SpheresOfBalance wrote:We have to make a distinction here. There are things that "are" universal to all people, then there are things that "can be" relative to all people.
If there are things that are universal to all people, then that would, in of itself, suggest that not just all people could but all people would be in agreement.
What exactly are the things that "are" universal to all people?
And, what exactly are the things that "can be" relative to all people?
SpheresOfBalance wrote: In terms of vegetables, it might be true that kale tastes best to you and zucchini tastes best to me, but it's a falsehood to say that either kale or zucchini tastes best.
To me it would not just be a falsehood to say that but also an extremely foolhardy and stupid thing to say. I don't like to talk like that and wonder why people still talk like that, especially after I explain to them why it is wrong to talk like that and after I have provided them with far better, more truthful ways to express themselves.
It may be a falsehood to say that either kale or zucchini tastes best, but it certainly is not a falsehood for me to say that either kale or zucchini tastes better than the other, to me.
I am just expressing myself, truthfully. There is no falsehood here whatsoever. Is this a universal, absolute truth? It is after all only a relative and subjective truth to me. So is this a relative truth or a universal truth, to you, or something different?
SpheresOfBalance wrote: A lot of young men might argue over which band is best, their 'preference' just can't be true universally.
In fact, is there anything that can be "best"? Best to what exactly and in who's view is it best, needs to be taken into account.
If any person tries to argue what they believe is right and others do not agree, then it (whatever it is) is actually not worth arguing about. Either an argument is sound and valid, i.e., a fact that is unambiguous and could not be disputed, and thus this type of argument could not be disagreed with, therefore it could be agreed with by all. Or, an argument is unsound and/or invalid, i.e., a statement that is only partly true or not true at all, and thus this type of argument will obviously not be agreed with by all.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Those types of truths, philosophically, really don't matter.
This is where I find your language somewhat confusing. In some of yours sentences you say relative truths do not exist, but then you continue on saying that those types of truths, i.e., relative truths, really do not matter. Which one is it going to be? Relative truths exist or not? Either something exists or it does not exist. Please pick one and stick to it. If something exists, then it can or can not matter, but if something does not exist, then it does not exist and so is not worthy of talking about, philosophically.
You have also alluded to "Those types of truths" are in fact falsehoods. But I struggle with how you can see a (type of) truth as a falsehood also. If a truth is a truth, then it is not a falsehood, right?
SpheresOfBalance wrote: The truths I'm always speaking of, are of the universal type! They are really the only ones important to philosophy.
Could you please provide some examples of those truths that really are the only important ones to philosophy for me here? I will see if my formula for universal truth works or not.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Everyone knows, I'm sure, that personal preference for something is often relative amongst people, it's subjective.
And is that not what is sometimes referred to as relative truth? Again, what is your definition of relative truth?
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Universally, I'm an empiricist.
Again you use the word 'universally' here. What is the purpose of this please?
SpheresOfBalance wrote:I was referring to universal truths. I kind of went off due to things in my life that defy the universal, a means of releasing steam. Which I hope was apparent.
Again I will say, to me both relative truth and universal truth exist. And, what is subjective or relative to ALL of us, i.e., everyone, is a truth that can not be disputed, therefore it can also be a universal truth.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:See immediately above. Here, in this philosophy forum, I'm only ever referencing universal truths.
None of this answers any of my questions.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Universal truths are.
You did not finish your sentence. I am unsure what you mean by universal truths are...
You sound like a very level headed and patient person, good for you!
Does that mean you will or will not provide your definition of relative truth?
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Here I refer to the actual universe; that which bore us, and that which ends us, at least this particular form.
If you are saying the universal rule is the actual universe, then I can not disagree with that.
I do wonder now, however, how could a universe have a different form?