There are no absolute truths, there are only polarities of the same thing. We are brainswashed into thinking we should classify everything into only two categories: light - dark, good - evil, cold - warm but there's only perception, limitless perception and we should not binarize anything. Enjoy the ride.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Dear miss or sir: If "there are no absolute truths", then there exists one absolute truth, namely, the truth that "there are no absolute truths", which is self-contradictory.
Do you know what contradictory means? Here's and example: "Jane is white AND not-white." It basically is building and tearing down at the same time an idea or expressed statement. It goes nowhere. Unless you want to go nowhere, there's no point in defending contradictions.
Now there is one truth that comes out of this self contradictions, namely, "There exists at least one absolute truth". In fact, there might be more than one.
What do you think? Is 2 + 2 = 4 an absolute truth? That is, is always and everywhere and under all conditions true?
Are you a witch or wican or wizard, or satanist of some sort? I know there lot's of such folk around, and some of them may have trouble with absolute truths... just wondering.
Remember that the Eternal God who created Heaven and earth without starting from any preexisting realities is a trinity of 3 persons. I think the true God would agree with you to think in threes rather than binary patterns for things.
I don't understand how that's a validation of 2+2=5. + denotes a very narrow, specific relationship between the two terms. You can't simply substitute it for whatever else you want to put in there, as you're changing the equation. 2t2 =/= 2+2.
My point is that some people do it. Math are based on axioms (self-proof).
...what? The doesn't establish that 2 + 2 = 5. I understand math are based on axioms, but changing the axiom used changes the definition. 2 + 2 =/= 5. 2t2 may well equal 5, but that's not the same equation. One does not prove or disprove the other.
Other than demonstrating that people equivocate, I don't understand what that indicates.
The point of my argument is that people use different rules to "prove" things. That was the original point if you remember. If math were so universally accepted then most people would love them, not hate them. They are almost counter intuitive to the human perception.
Arbitrary language on the other hand...
I recall your point, but what you provided doesn't demonstrate that 2 + 2 will not always equal 4. The only possible way it could is if you accept that + has no meaning and can be substituted for anything, but this is demonstrably false. It denotes a specific relationship. If you were to change + to t without maintaining that relationship, it becomes something entirely different and has no bearing on the original expression.
What about the praxeological action axiom? Can that be falsified somehow?
https://steemit.com/onemanyproblem/@apollonius/mere-tolerance-an-answer-to-professor-dario-antiseri-s-proposal-of-moral-relativism