There are no absolutes... or are there?

[gomaos]

of course there are absolute truths:

"killing toddlers and other innocent children is always evil"

"you need a body to live"

"males have a penis, females have a vagina"

"nobody knows what happens when you die"

"John Howard is an asshole"

"Bush is an evil Nazi faschist"

Just a few there, I could go on forever bit it's boring

there are billions of absolute truths....

[komodo]

hey gomaos, there arent any absolutes there, that list is a mixture of opinion, generalisation and assumption.

Edited March 11, 2007 by komodo

[KanJe]

I think in the midst of all this, what makes easy to interperate a phrase as an absolute is the fact that we are using words to communicate.

As we use words as the vehicles of concept, it's easy to interperate them as absolutes. I guess my reasoning is that because there is concrete way to say and hear a word, it is easy to think there is also a concrete meaning.

So just because there is one way to say and hear words like 'right', 'wrong' or 'truth', does not mean there is one meaning for them.

Does that make any sence or did I just dribble again.

[chilli]

I think in the midst of all this, what makes easy to interperate a phrase as an absolute is the fact that we are using words to communicate.

As we use words as the vehicles of concept, it's easy to interperate them as absolutes. I guess my reasoning is that because there is concrete way to say and hear a word, it is easy to think there is also a concrete meaning.

So just because there is one way to say and hear words like 'right', 'wrong' or 'truth', does not mean there is one meaning for them.

Does that make any sence or did I just dribble again.

Shades or levels of meaning for a word is different to contradictory meanings... which are you referring to?

[KanJe]

You are making an absolute philosophical statement, and thus undermining or contradicting the point you are trying to make. It is this problem that I find insoluble.

Sorry Chilli, it was more earlier in the thead in which i was refering to, this statment as an example. What I ment is its easy to take a statement constructed of words as an absolute because the words themselves are absolute.

Understand what I mean...?

[chilli]

Sorry Chilli, it was more earlier in the thead in which i was refering to, this statment as an example. What I ment is its easy to take a statement constructed of words as an absolute because the words themselves are absolute.

Understand what I mean...?

Sort of, but are you saying words are absolute? What do you mean by this if not absolute meaning?

[komodo]

i think this is a good point.. that language is itself a kind of personal absolute in that our choice of words sets forth a concrete thought object that we have formed. since its not actually a real 'thing' it can seem absolute.. relatively absolute

i used to love those choose your own adventure books, maybe absolutes in the sense gomaos used the term is a bit like this. we choose to interpret data as a certain reality and then subscribe to it absolutely. but maybe that isnt neccesary, i dont see why we cant subscribe to a certain reality and acknowledge its subjectivity at the same time?

edit: damn thats a lot of words without saying much! this is why i didnt go into postgrad with philosophy!

Edited March 12, 2007 by komodo

[gomaos]

okay...

i'll make it just 1 then...

"onemind" was going on that under "circumstances" killing toddlers wouldn't be evil?

Okay please explain.

And please don't quote "starwars" when darth vader (before he becomes darth vader) kills a whole trtbe of desert people because they tortured his mother.

That action was understandable but nevertheless totally evil.

I say:

"Killing toddlers is evil." That's an absolute.

Now prove me wrong.

Please.

[komodo]

in my universe its wrong because in my universe there is no such thing as evil.

[KanJe]

okay...

i'll make it just 1 then...

"onemind" was going on that under "circumstances" killing toddlers wouldn't be evil?

Okay please explain.

And please don't quote "starwars" when darth vader (before he becomes darth vader) kills a whole trtbe of desert people because they tortured his mother.

That action was understandable but nevertheless totally evil.

I say:

"Killing toddlers is evil." That's an absolute.

Now prove me wrong.

Please.

'Pain' and 'death' are typicially seen as negative concepts, just as 'life' and 'pleasure' are seen as positive.

Pain is seen as the body telling you that something is wrong and death is widely seen as lack of life.

If I were to bring pain and death to a baby, people put them selves into the shoes of the baby and see that its wrong because thats their veiw if the pain and death were to be inflicted onto them.

Now, if there is someone who sees the concepts of 'pain' and 'death' as bringing pleasure and life (this is possible), when they put themselves in the postion of the baby they see it as a positive thing.

People see it as negative because they relate to the baby with their own perceptions what is good and bad.

Does that explain it?

[gomaos]

doesn't convince me at all.

Pain is unpleasant...that's another absolute....

but I see what you're getting at...

you're not really interested in "the truth" (which according to you doesn't exist)

but just in linguistics...

you guys are far removed from "reality" (which according to you also doesn't exist)

and just theorethisize everything away.

I have known intense pain, and intense pleasure...

and i know what's good and what's bad.

It's a pity you make yourselves blind to the facts, and are so "aloof" above everything...

[chilli]

Hi Kanje...

I don't think we are necessarily going to get anywhere with the baby illustration, seeing as you have admitted that you do not think it is wrong to torture and kill babies.

Instead, lets examine the area of science, which I will assume you have some kind of respect for. When two scientists disagree about something, do we think that there is therefore nothing true that can be said about that thing? Do you believe the earth revolves around the sun, or do you think it is somehow valid that the earth is the centre of the universe just because someone happens to believe it?

[KanJe]

Obviously we see things differently, who is most valid?

Pain is a sensation, your the one who makes the connection that its bad.

What you see as good and bad is real to you.

It's funny you see it as being blind. I dont think I'm above anyone or anything, just like I dont we're any more right than each other.

I'm just curious gomaos from your previous statement, do you think you know the grand definition what is good and bad?

[chilli]

Hi Gomaos,

I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but you are the kind of person I think of as a "plain man".

The plain man values wisdom over intelligence, common sense over philosophical subtlety, and honesty over accuracy.

I am not really a plain man, but I like and trust plain men.

*edit* OMG, that sounds so patronizing.

Edited March 13, 2007 by Chilli

[KanJe]

Hi Kanje...

I don't think we are necessarily going to get anywhere with the baby illustration, seeing as you have admitted that you do not think it is wrong to torture and kill babies.

Instead, lets examine the area of science, which I will assume you have some kind of respect for. When two scientists disagree about something, do we think that there is therefore nothing true that can be said about that thing? Do you believe the earth revolves around the sun, or do you think it is somehow valid that the earth is the centre of the universe just because someone happens to believe it?

Just so you know, I never mentioned anything about torture.

If two scientists disagree about something I'm sure its possible that one is more valid than the other based on their evidence.

What I think though is that neither person is absolutely right because their views are always based on a sample or speculation by the senses.

No doubt the earth according to our senses presents that the earth does revolve around the sun. Our senses are not the be all an end all though, our eyes only show us an interpretation of the earth revolving around the sun.

I guess it just the difference between being 'more valid' and being 'absolutely right'.

[chilli]

Just so you know, I never mentioned anything about torture.

If two scientists disagree about something I'm sure its possible that one is more valid than the other based on their evidence.

What I think though is that neither person is absolutely right because their views are always based on a sample or speculation by the senses.

No doubt the earth according to our senses presents that the earth does revolve around the sun. Our senses are not the be all an end all though, our eyes only show us an interpretation of the earth revolving around the sun.

I guess it just the difference between being 'more valid' and being 'absolutely right'.

Sorry KanJe, I actually mixed this thread up with the other one, the two were so similar... and Gomaos mentioned killing babies in this thread.

What I was referring to when I said torture was our discussion in the other thread where you compared cutting up babies for fun to clipping a poodle or stuffing a duck for Christmas. I mistakenly included a specific reference to torture in my last comment because I thought it was implicit in cutting up the baby for fun rather than just killing it.

I'm curious to know why you mention this point though, does the addition of torture make any difference to your position? What I mean is, would you compare someone torturing a baby for fun with say, someone playing a video game for fun?

I'm glad you said with regards to science at least that one view can be considered 'more valid' than another, because otherwise I'd see little point in discussing anything with you. I also would usually refrain from saying any scientific finding is incontestably right, although I think that we can for practical purposes generally disregard extreme skepticism about induction. For example, I think it is safe to say that it is right that the earth revloves around the sun, and I'm fairly sure you would agree with this?

Given your position that words, numbers and concepts can all be absolute, I'm interested to know why you are opposed to concepts about morality being potentially true or false?

Sorry for all the haranguing questions, I've just been thinking about this stuff a lot lately.

[KanJe]

To start off with in regards to the torture comment, I was making a lousy attempt to be humourous.

I myself would not agree with it, but I believed that it extends only as far as my point of view.

When it comes down to morality i think that its relative. For example, a serial murderer and a member of green peace (not to generalise) would have very different views of right and wrong, but both views would be very real to each person.

I'm not opposed to morality being true or false to people, its more there being one grand set morals that everyone is yet to discover.

I do have morals.

I do think its wrong to torture and kill a baby.

[DeadLizard]

1st post Hi

The statement that there are no absolutes is itself an absolute statement, and is therefore self-refuting: similarly, the statement that all truth is relative is a self-defeating and pointless statement. It is hypocritical to say all beliefs should be tolerated, except those which claim absolute truth, because this statement is itself a claim to an absolute truth.

This is essentially a linguistic problem. The words we use are themselves not absolute.

True paradox doesn't really exist, most things we call paradox's are just failures of logic.

logically, a belief in relative truth would require that we both accept and deny everything.

This is not a paradox if you accept Mandalic Logic, that is a thing is both what it is and what it is not.

Therefore absolute and relative truth are in fact the same thing

Example:

If I see you eating a baby I would think thats absolutely wrong even if you thought it was absolutely right.

neither view is absolute. neither view is false

"This statement is false"

Edited March 14, 2007 by DeadLizard

[chilli]

When it comes down to morality i think that its relative...

I do have morals.

I do think its wrong to torture and kill a baby.

I am relieved that you think it is wrong to torture and kill a baby, but can you see that if you think morals are relative, there is really no point in having them?

There is no point in doing good or avoiding evil, because there is ultimately no such distinction to be made.

You mentioned two people may have opposite morals and both of them would be real to the respective individuals, but this is a different thing from each set of morals being true... someone can sincerely believe that people never really landed on the moon, or that global warming is not happening, and yet be completely wrong... the fact that their belief is real to them does not mean that it concords with reality.

Why do you believe in abstract laws of mathematics, logic, language and science, but not a moral law?

[komodo]

you're not really interested in "the truth"

i like the way you put that in quotes gomaos! talk about linguistics... my point being that i agree, truth is a loaded term. your truth is based on your sensory data and your interpretation of that data. i see the formation of values as a core function and feedback component in the way people interpret their input. your values are not correct or true any more than any other values. they are based on your identity, not some cosmic right/wrong routine, and as such they are relative, not absolute.

[KanJe]

you're not really interested in "the truth"

i like the way you put that in quotes gomaos! talk about linguistics... my point being that i agree, truth is a loaded term. your truth is based on your sensory data and your interpretation of that data. i see the formation of values as a core function and feedback component in the way people interpret their input. your values are not correct or true any more than any other values. they are based on your identity, not some cosmic right/wrong routine, and as such they are relative, not absolute.

Once again, you have put the idea into words better than I could. Language is just sensory, there for cannot be absolute concepts because the senses are also not absolute.

Props to you Komodo

[chilli]

Hi DeadLizard, welcome to SAB...

"This statement is false"

Here we see the ultimate absurdity of sheer relativism.

Can anyone demonstrate how moral relativism can lead to anything other than nihilism?

[chilli]

Once again, you have put the idea into words better than I could. Language is just sensory, there for cannot be absolute concepts because the senses are also not absolute.

Props to you Komodo

I'm confused KanJe, earlier you agreed that words, numbers and concepts can be absolute... are you now altering this position?

[KanJe]

I found this hard to articulate.

I see words as connections of sensory information. A word is made up connections of auditory and visual information. So as a word alone it can be absolute as a concept. But when it comes to the concept of law or truth I think words are not absolute.

I really think komodo put it well...

[komodo]

hey thanks kanje self-formed subjective values as the primary component in determining identity and world view has been a pet idea of mine for awhile. i feed it and take it for walks sometimes, its doing ok so far.

Can anyone demonstrate how moral relativism can lead to anything other than nihilism?

ok i'll give it a shot, consider these two:

i like 'stuff' because 'stuff' gives me feelings of pleasure or is interesting to me. therefore i don't want 'stuff' to be annihilated.1\

and another:

i put 'stuff' on moral high ground because for xyz personal values it is to me relatively more good than other 'stuff'. therefore 'good stuff' is better than 'bad stuff'.

the first is a demonstration of how you dont need morality to value things, while the second illustrates that moral relativism requires by definition that everything is not equally empty, ie. this is not nihilism.

Edited March 15, 2007 by komodo