Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:44 am
Relative truths are not approximations of any Absolute Truth.
Where is your proofs if you do not agree to the above?
You are merely jumping to conclusion there is an Absolute Truth.
Relative truths are truths that are conditioned to their specific Framework and System.
For example, scientific truths are true only as conditioned to the human agreed upon Scientific Framework, System and Methods.
It is a legal truth Ted Bundy was a convicted serial killer but only conditioned upon the US Constitution and its Laws.
There are economic, social, political, etc. truths that are subjected to their respective Framework and Systems.
There is no Absolute Truth that stands independently by itself.
Your desperation for an Absolute Truth is due to your internal terrible existential psychology. On a massive scale from the majority of theists, this clinging on an absolute truth has inspired terrible evil and violent acts.
"⊙"
Tell me how the axioms forming the above are not absolute.
The above axioms are conditioned by the Framework and System of Geometry which in turn is conditioned by the human conditions.
Since they are conditioned they cannot be absolutely absolute.
Absolute = totally unconditioned.
You say absolute is totally unconditional, but then say there is no absolute because there are no conditions for it.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:21 am
Actually it applies to subjective self reflection and global politics as well (the alternation of communist and capitalist values, etc.).
The dialectic at any point in time seems extremely antithetical.
Focus on the point of convergence.
Who said a dialetic is necessary, people do what they want and consequences come as a result...golden rule.
Tell me how the axioms forming the above are not absolute.
The above axioms are conditioned by the Framework and System of Geometry which in turn is conditioned by the human conditions.
Since they are conditioned they cannot be absolutely absolute.
Absolute = totally unconditioned.
You say absolute is totally unconditional, but then say there is no absolute because there are no conditions for it.
Then claim relativity as an unconditioned truth.
I did Not say the following;
"then say there is no absolute because there are no conditions for it."
That is your red herring.
My point is this;
Those who claimed the absolute exists, imply such an absolutely-absolute is totally unconditioned, e.g. a God.
Where did I claim relativity is an unconditioned truth.
Relativity by default is conditional.
My claim is this;
Whatever is of reality-as-it-is is relative to some specific perspective.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:21 am
The above axioms are conditioned by the Framework and System of Geometry which in turn is conditioned by the human conditions.
Since they are conditioned they cannot be absolutely absolute.
Absolute = totally unconditioned.
You say absolute is totally unconditional, but then say there is no absolute because there are no conditions for it.
Then claim relativity as an unconditioned truth.
I did Not say the following;
"then say there is no absolute because there are no conditions for it."
That is your red herring.
My point is this;
Those who claimed the absolute exists, imply such an absolutely-absolute is totally unconditioned, e.g. a God.
Where did I claim relativity is an unconditioned truth.
Relativity by default is conditional.
My claim is this;
Whatever is of reality-as-it-is is relative to some specific perspective.
Yes...and those perspectives? They originate from what exactly?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:22 pm
And tell me what "use" is exactly considering I heard so many definitions they might as well be cracks in the mind.
Utility is entirely subjective.
But (to me) prediction is more useful than explanation.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:22 pm
And tell me what "use" is exactly considering I heard so many definitions they might as well be cracks in the mind.
Utility is entirely subjective.
But (to me) prediction is more useful than explanation.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:24 pm
Prediction is explanation of the future.
Yeah but the key distinction is control! Determinism.
"We know the past but cannot control it. We control the future but cannot know it." CE Shannon.
The philosophical masturbation of free will vs determinism is not supposed to be addressed. What we are supposed to recognise is that determinism (of the future) is a deeply cherrished human value.
Everybody wants certainty. Or perhaps more correctly - most humans dislike and avoid uncertainty.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:24 pm
Prediction is explanation of the future.
Yeah but the key distinction is control! Determinism.
"We know the past but cannot control it. We control the future but cannot know it." CE Shannon.
The philosophical masturbation of free will vs determinism is not supposed to be addressed. What we are supposed to recognise is that determinism (of the future) is a deeply cherrished human value.
Everybody wants certainty. Or perhaps more correctly - most humans dislike and avoid uncertainty.
The will of man has no certainty...there is reason why many religious traditions, specifically Christianity, view mankind in a feminine sense relative to God...it is fickle and without form. Passive to all experience, and dominated by it. And what good is experience if it cannot be interpreted?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:24 am
You say absolute is totally unconditional, but then say there is no absolute because there are no conditions for it.
Then claim relativity as an unconditioned truth.
I did Not say the following;
"then say there is no absolute because there are no conditions for it."
That is your red herring.
My point is this;
Those who claimed the absolute exists, imply such an absolutely-absolute is totally unconditioned, e.g. a God.
Where did I claim relativity is an unconditioned truth.
Relativity by default is conditional.
My claim is this;
Whatever is of reality-as-it-is is relative to some specific perspective.
Yes...and those perspectives? They originate from what exactly?
It is your problem when you use the term 'originate' in this case which denote 'origin' and thus leading to a conundrum of seeking for an unconditional absolute-origin within an infinite regression leading to nowhere.
You should just give up this false-starting and never ending impossible 'jumping ahead' conclusion.
We should focus on the fact that perspectives exist and they emerge from the human conditions. Note non-humans do not have perspectives like humans do.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:31 am
I did Not say the following;
"then say there is no absolute because there are no conditions for it."
That is your red herring.
My point is this;
Those who claimed the absolute exists, imply such an absolutely-absolute is totally unconditioned, e.g. a God.
Where did I claim relativity is an unconditioned truth.
Relativity by default is conditional.
My claim is this;
Whatever is of reality-as-it-is is relative to some specific perspective.
Yes...and those perspectives? They originate from what exactly?
It is your problem when you use the term 'originate' in this case which denote 'origin' and thus leading to a conundrum of seeking for an unconditional absolute-origin within an infinite regression leading to nowhere.
You should just give up this false-starting and never ending impossible 'jumping ahead' conclusion.
We should focus on the fact that perspectives exist and they emerge from the human conditions. Note non-humans do not have perspectives like humans do.
