Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

[henry quirk]

does the same thing to any naked hand thrust into it, no matter the 'mental language' of the hand-owner. There's seven billion plus opinions about reality but there's only one reality.

[uwot]

I really don't think it's contentious. It's what people do. They hear a proposition and they either accept it, or they don't.

Well, it just begs another question: what does it mean to "accept" or "deny" a proposition?

Really?

What do people who accept the proposition "Truth is Absolute" do?

They accept it.

What do people who deny the proposition "Truth is Absolute" do?

They deny it.

Go for it.

I'll let the Philosophers know.

Again: go for it.

[Skepdick]

I really don't think it's contentious. It's what people do. They hear a proposition and they either accept it, or they don't.

Well, it just begs another question: what does it mean to "accept" or "deny" a proposition?

Really?

Yeah. Really.

What do people who accept the proposition "Truth is Absolute" do?

They accept it.

What do people who deny the proposition "Truth is Absolute" do?

They deny it.

Isn't that a tad circular?

What do you think it means to accept or deny a proposition?

[Skepdick]

There's seven billion plus opinions about reality but there's only one reality.

OK. Describe this "one reality" in a language/vocabulary that all 7+ billion people will agree with.

does the same thing to any naked hand thrust into it

Tell us what does to a hand in a way that a physicist, chemist and a doctor would all agree.

[uwot]

Well, it just begs another question: what does it mean to "accept" or "deny" a proposition?

Really?

Yeah. Really.

What do people who accept the proposition "Truth is Absolute" do?

They accept it.

What do people who deny the proposition "Truth is Absolute" do?

They deny it.

Isn't that a tad circular?

What do you think it means to accept or deny a proposition?

Oh fuck, you're editing again. Tell ya what, let us know when you are happy with your response, and I'll deal with that one.

[Skepdick]

Really?

Yeah. Really.

They accept it.
They deny it.

Isn't that a tad circular?

What do you think it means to accept or deny a proposition?

Oh fuck, you're editing again. Tell ya what, let us know when you are happy with your response, and I'll deal with that one.

The one you responded to works.

[uwot]

The one you responded to works.

Great! So what's the problem?

[Skepdick]

Great! So what's the problem?

What do you think it means to accept or deny a proposition?

[henry quirk]

Describe this "one reality" in a language/vocabulary that all 7+ billion people will agree with.

Tell us what does to a hand in a way that a physicist, chemist and a doctor would all agree.

don't have to: a burn is a burn, no matter who is burned, no matter the opinion on the burn

[Skepdick]

don't have to: a burn is a burn, no matter who is burned, no matter the opinion on the burn

The doctor agrees with your description.
The physicist and the chemist disagree.

Your language fails to capture the thermodynamic and endothermic nuances of the situation.

[uwot]

Great! So what's the problem?

What do you think it means to accept or deny a proposition?

Well, the contentious word here is deny. Belief or acceptance of a proposition really isn't hard, in my books. Deny, on the other hand, is often taken to imply asserting the contrary. It needn't; it just means not believing.

[Skepdick]

Well, the contentious word here is deny.

Not for me. I am contending the meaning of "believing".

it just means not believing.

You are going around in circles.

What do you mean by "believing" and "not believing"?

[uwot]

What do you mean by "believing" and "not believing"?

I'll keep it brief. By "believing" and "not believing", I mean believing and not believing.

[henry quirk]

don't have to: a burn is a burn, no matter who is burned, no matter the opinion on the burn

The doctor agrees with your description.
The physicist and the chemist disagree.

Your language fails to capture the thermodynamic and endothermic nuances of the situation.

anyone can disagree as they like: a burned hand speaks for itself

[Sculptor]

It only undermines false claims of absolute truth.
What it happily does is limit absolute truth, restricting it to reasonable boundaries, by indicating contexts.

Quine concludes that there are "possibly infinite" ontologies. Therefore there are "possibly infinite" truths.

That's not a limit.

If that is an accurate description of what Quine says (which I doubt) then Quine is a fool.