Empty, while I am even more underwhelmed by you spouting dogma than by you acting out your jeal- ousy of Vaj and myself, I perceive the possibility for fun here, so I'm gonna go for it.
So I issue you a challenge -- describe for me (and our studio audience) something NON-relative, some "truth" (or anything, for that matter) that can be said to be non-relative or absolute. And you have to do so while using no comparison with anything relative to describe it, and using no relative point of view from which to perceive it. ( Otherwise it's...duh...relative. Right? ) I'll wait. :-) If you can't do it, I have to assume that either this "non-relative truth" you glorify 1) does not exist, or 2) is irrelevant to relative existence because it can only be experienced or described *via* relative existence. Put up or shut up. Your "non-relative truth" can either be produced or it cannot. And producing it only in terms of the relative or in comparison to the relative or from a relative point of view is...duh...just one more example of relativism. Have fun. --- In [email protected], "emptybill" <emptyb...@...> wrote: > > Some posters here are so unconsciously absorbed in their > relativism that they don't even notice it. Others celebrate > it as if it was a triumph. Yep, it's a Triumph des Willens, > and quite comical to watch - a sort of burleque show. Isn't > this is why *humorous and hubris* go together so well? > > *** > > Relativism sets out to reduce every element of absoluteness > to a relativity, while making a quite illogical exception > in favor of this reduction itself. In effect, relativism > consists in declaring it to be true that there is no such > thing as truth, or in declaring it to be absolutely true that > nothing but the relatively true exists; one might just as well > say that language does not exist, or write that there is no > such thing as writing. In short, every idea is reduced to a > relativity of some sort, whether psychological, historical, > or social; but the assertion nullifies itself by the fact > that it too presents itself as a psychological, historical, > or social relativity. The assertion nullifies itself if it > is true, and by nullifying itself logically proves thereby > that it is false; its initial absurdity lies in the implicit > claim to be unique in escaping, as if by enchantment, from a > relativity that is declared alone to be possible. > > (from Logic and Transcendence)
