What if you just stopped using absolute terms? You could say:
"I absolutely sure that there appear to be no absolutes"
"Most things are not absolutely true."
I hear what you're trying to say, but you've got to understand that a blanket statement such as "there are no absolutes" is self refuting and bound to make some people a little prickly...
...but what do I know? I am ALWAYS wrong.
tonyenglish7 wrote:Is your opinion that "there are no absolutes", true everywhere or just here? Your statment is self defeating either in this universe or the other "everywheres" you for which you speculate.
You are saying, "there are no absolute concepts that cover all of reality"
tonyenglish7 wrote:yet this is a concept that is either true or not. (Law of the excluded middle), and commits suicide upon itself. Sorry dude, there is no escape....
marc wrote:Thanks for trying!! I'm with you, and I agree, I just don't think it's really possible. When you don't believe in most absolutes (and by absolutes, I mean the moral, logical and others Tony keeps bringing up) and are told "See, you can't even argue against absolute truth statements without first believing in them.", well what's the point?!?
marc wrote: This is supposed to be a forum for discussion, Tony doesn't discuss, he fights.
marc wrote:tonyenglish7 wrote:I am making a point about the actual existence of absolutes using your own statements. This one you just made can be responded too ; Are you "absolutely" sure we do not talk in absolute concepts? See, even your statement is self-refuting and this is true whenever anyone tries to argue against the actuality of absolute logical realities.
Tony, since I am the one making my statements, YES I am absolutely certain (as far as I can be with the knowledge I have available) that nothing I say is absolutely certain (and, yes, I see the contradiction in that sentence, but that doesn't make it untrue). You can philosophize all you want about what I'm saying but that doesn't remove the fact that I am the only one who knows for sure what I mean when I say anything. If you don't believe that I am completely uncertain about EVERYTHING, and I realize that to you that is an absolute statement, well then you're just wrong. Philosophy is only good up until the point that you have to live in the real world and deal with real people and real issues, then there becomes a divide between the idealism of philosophy and the pragmatism needed to get through life. In the end I find philosophy, taken without real life into account and an understanding that it's really just mind games, can lead to a mindset of "I know nothing, I can't know anything, I may as well not leave the house". You want to put more weight behind the mind games and mental masturbation of philosophy, fine, just don't expect everyone to. Personally I enjoy thinking about things philosophically but I realize it's a utopian view of things and doesn't always mean much when I need to live my life.
I don't get angry because you've got a point I can't refute, I get frustrated that you don't listen and show no respect. I could talk with Scott all day, agree on nothing, and still walk away liking and respecting him. Even if I agreed with you, I'd think you were disingenuous in how you "debate". You don't want or try to have honest debate, you try and use force to get your points across and don't honestly listen to the people you're talking to. You'll probably accuse me of personally attacking you again for saying all this but it's unavoidable, it's impossible to discuss with you as many others besides myself have realized and pointed out to you. Your style of debate precludes real conversation and needs to be pointed out/overcome if any real dialog is to happen. I'm sorry you can't see this about yourself but don't shoot the messengers for pointing it out. If "I don't know" and "as far as we know" aren't good enough and you need these absolutes, that's not anyone else's fault.
For example:tonyenglish7 wrote:The only way to argue against it logically is to say, “I am not sure about that.”
You say this but when someone does say "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" your usual answer is "that's not good enough". This is not open and honest dialog you're having, it comes off more like combat.
dunc289 wrote:Logical absolutetes exist
Still not convinced.
Does this mean that because -1 times -1 equals 1, or infinity exists as a concept, then god logically follows? Not for me it doesn't.
When answering, please bear in mind I have zero training in logic.
Surfing and Krav Maga, somewhat better understanding.
dunc289 wrote:Hi Tony,
I take the point that they're not physical, but cannot make the leap to assume that existing as concepts means there must be somewhere for the concepts to exist in.
For instance, an ideal conceptual circle is comprised of an infinite number of straight lines, and circles can come in an infinite number of sizes. If circles have an infinite number of sides, there may also be an infinite number of polygons to accompany them, also in an infinity of sizes. Scale this analogy up to include 3D shapes such as spheres, and then include an infinite number of dimensions and all the shapes they make possible, it seems that the "space" required to conceptualize all these possibilities, or even EVERY possibility, would have to be one of the larger infinities. Certainly much larger than any finite number of multiverses and all the energy, data and matter they contain.
I guess it makes more sense to me that they can exist as concepts without the need for a mind, or a Platonic space to exist in. They just ARE. Of course thats just an argument from ignorance. Which is why its mine.
I did not read your details, I had a revelation.
all the best.
BTW in addition to knowing nothing of logic, I can make the same claim for my knowledge of mathematics. Any topologists out there want to correct me, fire away.
dunc289 wrote:But even if there are no dimensions, mathematics would still exist, and with it infinity.
We seem to only be aware of 4 dimensions, yet more are thinkable.
But still, my point was that these things do not need a place or mind to exist in.
dunc289 wrote:But the fact that these concepts exist doesn't prove anything about mind, just concepts.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests