Impossibility of relativism?

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by followtheevidence

I guess you would have to show me how simply stating that I was born female isn't absolutely true for what it states.

What if you aren't a female? What if you are some kind of non-dual spirit of probabilities/possibilities that is undefined until you define it, and you are only playing the role of female for the duration of this life only.

In that case, calling yourself a female would not be entirely true.

Pedanticism aside ... the gender role I decided to 'play' in this life would still be female. That's not ALL I am, but in what it describes, it IS absolutely true.

Originally posted by followtheevidence

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by followtheevidence

I guess you would have to show me how simply stating that I was born female isn't absolutely true for what it states.

What if you aren't a female? What if you are some kind of non-dual spirit of probabilities/possibilities that is undefined until you define it, and you are only playing the role of female for the duration of this life only.

In that case, calling yourself a female would not be entirely true.

Pedanticism aside ... the gender role I decided to 'play' in this life would still be female. That's not ALL I am, but in what it describes, it IS absolutely true.

Not if our definitions have the possibility of being different and both being true.

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by followtheevidence

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by followtheevidence
Reality is what it is and is not what it is not. There is the way things are and the way things are not.

Reality being relative to our perception only affects our experience of reality - not reality in truth.

Moreover, this reality you refer to cannot be divided for the only thing that makes a division of it is that which experiences it relatively from its personal perspective.

But that relative experience doesn't accurately describe reality as it is in truth. So again, relative only to the observer - but that doesn't change that reality is what it is and is not what it is not.

The only thing about this is that reality isn't until it is observed.

Ahhhhhh, so the above premise must be true for your conclusion to also be true.

Well, the universe precluded observation ... soooo. Idk. Your premise is not a proven case so if it is a false premise your conclusion is unreliable.

Side-note: I'm enjoying this conversation

Originally posted by followtheevidence


Well, the universe precluded observation ... soooo. Idk.

Not according to my beliefs. We know matter is and we know everything is made up of it, and we know it has mass, and we know it can be charged negatively, neutrally, or positively, and we know it can organize into different combinations, but we don't know WHAT it is. We say it is a state of energy, but what is the essence of energy? Although there is no room for scientific acceptance for what I believe, I enjoy believing that the essence of all matter and energy is consciousness. And I'm able to draw a line of hypothetical conclusions from that belief that give it strong anecdotal support.

So with that said, I really don't believe the universe precluded observation.

Side-note: I'm enjoying this conversation

Thank you.

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by followtheevidence

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by followtheevidence

I guess you would have to show me how simply stating that I was born female isn't absolutely true for what it states.

What if you aren't a female? What if you are some kind of non-dual spirit of probabilities/possibilities that is undefined until you define it, and you are only playing the role of female for the duration of this life only.

In that case, calling yourself a female would not be entirely true.

Pedanticism aside ... the gender role I decided to 'play' in this life would still be female. That's not ALL I am, but in what it describes, it IS absolutely true.

Not if our definitions have the possibility of being different and both being true.

Our definitions can only both be true if they do not contradict each other.

Aristotle's law of non-contradiction and all ...

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by followtheevidence


Well, the universe precluded observation ... soooo. Idk.

Not according to my beliefs. We know matter is and we know everything is made up of it, and we know it has mass, and we know it can be charged negatively, neutrally, or positively, and we know it can organize into different combinations, but we don't know WHAT it is. We say it is a state of energy, but what is the essence of energy? Although there is no room for scientific acceptance for what I believe, I enjoy believing that the essence of all matter and energy is consciousness. And I'm able to draw a line of hypothetical conclusions from that belief that give it strong anecdotal support.

So with that said, I really don't believe the universe precluded observation.

Side-note: I'm enjoying this conversation

Thank you.

edit on 27-3-2012 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)

Which brings me back to the topic. The only thing I can really say about anything that is true for everything is that it exists.

reply to post by followtheevidence


'The universe precluded observation' is an assumption, a misconception. They come as one.

Originally posted by followtheevidence

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by followtheevidence

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by followtheevidence

I guess you would have to show me how simply stating that I was born female isn't absolutely true for what it states.

What if you aren't a female? What if you are some kind of non-dual spirit of probabilities/possibilities that is undefined until you define it, and you are only playing the role of female for the duration of this life only.

In that case, calling yourself a female would not be entirely true.

Pedanticism aside ... the gender role I decided to 'play' in this life would still be female. That's not ALL I am, but in what it describes, it IS absolutely true.

Not if our definitions have the possibility of being different and both being true.

Our definitions can only both be true if they do not contradict each other.

Aristotle's law of non-contradiction and all ...

I say I have blonde hair. To the color blind person, I have gray hair. So which one of us is right?

The observed (image appearing before you) cannot appear without the observer (you seeing).
Until 'you are' no 'thing' can appear. The image appearing, full of color, sound, texture, sensation is not separate from you, it just appears that way.

reply to post by followtheevidence


"All truth is relative"

It's kind of like saying; "There are no absolutes" ... unless you count that statement.

Really though... neither statement means anything.

Nothing can be defined without the observer defining it. Therefore, truth is only possible by observation. However, that doesn't mean it does exist objectively, only that it is possible. When the observer can only define things on subjective terms, then what is defined is true, but only true to the observer. Therefore, the only objective truth is relativity.

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by followtheevidence

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by followtheevidence

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by followtheevidence

I guess you would have to show me how simply stating that I was born female isn't absolutely true for what it states.

What if you aren't a female? What if you are some kind of non-dual spirit of probabilities/possibilities that is undefined until you define it, and you are only playing the role of female for the duration of this life only.

In that case, calling yourself a female would not be entirely true.

Pedanticism aside ... the gender role I decided to 'play' in this life would still be female. That's not ALL I am, but in what it describes, it IS absolutely true.

Not if our definitions have the possibility of being different and both being true.

Our definitions can only both be true if they do not contradict each other.

Aristotle's law of non-contradiction and all ...

I say I have blonde hair. To the color blind person, I have gray hair. So which one of us is right?

What wavelength of light is being reflected off of the hair? That's who, if anyone, is right.

Originally posted by followtheevidence

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by followtheevidence

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by followtheevidence

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by followtheevidence

I guess you would have to show me how simply stating that I was born female isn't absolutely true for what it states.

What if you aren't a female? What if you are some kind of non-dual spirit of probabilities/possibilities that is undefined until you define it, and you are only playing the role of female for the duration of this life only.

In that case, calling yourself a female would not be entirely true.

Pedanticism aside ... the gender role I decided to 'play' in this life would still be female. That's not ALL I am, but in what it describes, it IS absolutely true.

Not if our definitions have the possibility of being different and both being true.

Our definitions can only both be true if they do not contradict each other.

Aristotle's law of non-contradiction and all ...

I say I have blonde hair. To the color blind person, I have gray hair. So which one of us is right?

What wavelength of light is being reflected off of the hair? That's who, if anyone, is right.

Light is the only thing who's speed cannot change due to relative observation. Therefore, if there is any objective truth, it is of the light. And if all is one indivisible form, then zoom out to the edge of the universe and tell me what you see.

reply to post by followtheevidence


morality to the mind is nothing but an idea that we ourselves create.

for example

a good wife is somebody who cooks dinner every night
a good parent is somebody who puts his child into a car seat
a good person believes in my idea of what god is
a good kid is somebody who goes to college
a good employee shows up at exactly 8:30 every morning
a good person works hard
etc...

these are all example of what one may believe it means to be good. all of them are subjective and all of them are relative. Each and every single one of these ideas can be questioned, judged, contradicted, debated, analyzed, etc... Not a single one of them is solid irrefutable proof of what a good person is. For example parents 20 years ago did not even use car seats, does this make all parents 20 years ago bad?

because good and bad is something that only exists within the mind via ideas when we believe that we have the right or authority to dictate morality all that we are doing is using ideas that are subjective and relative to label and judge and criticize both ourselves and each other. this is all the ego's doing..

who are any one of us to dictate what is good and what is bad? with even the most extreme form of what we may be tempted to label as bad such as killing another there is perfection in this if we open ourselves up to being able to see the true nature of life. despite what many of us are believing life is extremely intelligent. if we are not balanced ourselves the intelligence that is life is going to enforce balance upon us. this means that when we are not balanced ourselves there is going to be a reaction for every action or every choice that we make, some undesirable, some very undesirable. this is why instead of being consumed with labeling the self and others as good and bad we need to be focused on ourselves.. we need to be focused on finding balance within ourselves so that we are no longer a so called victim to the karmic wheel of cause and effect.


when we transcend the ego and open up the heart the idea of goodness is absolutely pure. it is kind and peaceful and loving and supportive and abundant and encouraging and uplifting. in this state of being we know goodness and feel goodness because it is true. it is something that can be felt and experienced with the heart and therefore known. it is not something that can be questioned or debated or analyzed or judged. goodness is something that we are rather than an idea that we are trying to believe. it is very very beautiful.

Originally posted by nicolet

when we transcend the ego and open up the heart the idea of goodness is absolutely pure. it is kind and peaceful and loving and supportive and abundant and encouraging and uplifting. in this state of being we know goodness and feel goodness because it is true. it is something that can be felt and experienced with the heart and therefore known. it is not something that can be questioned or debated or analyzed or judged. goodness is something that we are rather than an idea that we are trying to believe. it is very very beautiful.

The only truth is subjectivity itself. Because we are the only ones who get to define any truth. Therefore, what I see as true and what you see as true may be contradictory, but both are true. It is true because we say it is, and we are that which has that right.

There is no truth except your own.

I have to work a long graveyard shift in like 7 hours ... going to sleep but will revisit this thread and happily reply to posts later.

Cheers

reply to post by followtheevidence


when truth is freedom value, then relativism is all there is since freedom is individuality always while it is the truth so any is individual always

but truth is not only freedom but freedom value, so not any is freedom right and all is definitive objective freedom value the reason of existence

so relativity is individual truth and absolutism is to surprising truths, where truth is absolute superiority of freedom, so the freedom always getting higher to superior freedom, surprising truth bc cant b never by all nor any bc it is really the truth

reply to post by absolutely


existence is when truth became constant,

so freedom as individual constancy and value as absolute constancy

n btw relative is right and right is superior to absolute, bc right is exclusively of absolute base, what is basically absolute is then true so always superior sense free, then right mean absolute objectivity that cant b done bc objective is, but of same value and since existence then constant, then to b constant of being forced to b less objective then superior for sure, so relative is superior to absolute

it is evil that deform concepts in words sentence

it is evil that mean relativism being inferior to absolute powers, from willing to destroy right of individual superiority

Originally posted by alfa1
On a personal note, I once met someone many years ago who subscribed to the view that anything is true if it is "true for them". I asked him then if it is possible for anyone to ever be wrong about anything, ever? After thinking about it a moment, he replied that, no, nobody can ever be wrong, ever.
At that point I changed the topic, knowing further discussion was pointless.

At that point I would have burst out laughing, because the statement is itself wrong..

reply to post by followtheevidence


How about this?

"Not everything is in black and white."

In other words, why must everything be either absolute or not absolute?

There will always be subjectivity, but it's kind of hard to call fire or gravity subjective.