You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: There Are No Absolute Truths
You are clearly wrong. "Existence exist" Is an absolute truth. I can find lots more if you are interested.
You are clearly wrong. "Existence exist" Is an absolute truth. I can find lots more if you are interested.
How can you demonstrate this truth?
What kind of demonstration would satisfy you? I mean look. Think. There is something as opposed to nothing. If there was nothing you would not see or think anything.
Let's take your last statement. When you hold your hand open you can assume in the traditional linguist perception that you hold nothing. If we examine the matter from a more scientific perspective then you are holding molecules of oxygen, hydrogen and plenty of carbon since the surface of your hand will most likely be roaming with bacteria and other organisms.
As you can see nothing and something can shift meanings depending on the point of view examined. This is what the statement "There are no absolute truths" implies. There can't be any because there are always multiple perspectives.
You can't use the concept of existence in the process of denying existence. That would be the logical fallacy of the stolen concept.
If you accept that consciousness do exist then you also have to accept that existence exist.
"If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness." -Ayn Rand
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/existence.html
I never claimed to deny existence. I simply gave you two possible interpretations about the nature of existence.
Define consciousness
Try to engage in the conversation based on the premises of the article rather than trying to find arguments based on quotes from authors that answered similar questions. I never even mentioned consciousness in the article or on in this thread.
There is not even a unified dictionary definition for the world. That actually demonstrates that consciousness cannot be absolutely true since it perceived differently :)
We can ask 10 people to define existence and you will see that their truths will be relative to each other and none will have sufficient evidence to provide an objective truth for all.
Water in a frosen state is dry (dry ice). It's an absolute. Water in liquid state is wet. It's an absolute. We know it because we have senses to tell us facts about the objective reality. All our knowledge rests on the axiomatic concepts of existence and consciousness. They are absolute.
I reject your premise. It's false. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself. You reject identification so you reject the need for logic. I uphold logic as an absolute.
Based on your point of view, this is again a relative truth because water holds that state in that point in time. In another point in time it might not hold that state. You cannot guarantee it will stay forever dry or wet. Therefore it cannot be absolute. The state of matter is depended on time and time itself is relative.
There is no contradiction. There is a parallel state of viewing something. Check the first picture. The cylinder casts two shadows. For you only one can be true. Not only that it is the absolute truth.
I do not reject identification. I expand it
An atom is not just itself. An atom is the relationship it has with subatomic particles that pop in and out of existence. It can be itself from one point of view and it can be something else from another point of view.
Ayn Rand is not ketchup to apply it everywhere mate. Learn to listen and expand your knowledge. I am demonstrating to you your close-mindedness and you still insist.
You uphold logic as an absolute because you reject to see other perspectives. That's just an opinion. You are not saying anything
So you agree that "Existence exist" You are just unsure about the nature of it? I think we can all agree that existence exist is an absolute.
If we can ask people surely that must presuppose existence and some people conscious of it that can communicate. What people think or feel about existence is irrelevent to the facts of reality. "Existence exist" is an absolute no person can attemt to deny without invoking concepts resting on existence and consciousness as true and absolute.
Since you cannot know the nature of existence saying "existence exists" is similar to saying "water is wet". You are being descriptive based on the subject matters premises. You are not defining it based on other constituents.
Try to reason logically with the premise of my argument instead of your predispositions about this.
I think what you are refering to is the contextual nature of knowledge. When rational people share their context conflicts are resolved.
So you have faith that something can come from nothing? Is that an absolute for you? It's not possible.
I disagree. You seem to be open to contradictions. It's not a virtue.
You seem to not understand the difference between objective reality and the contextual nature of knowledge.
I think, therefore I exist.
Q.E.D.
I prefer: Existence exist. I am conscious of it, therefore I choose to think. I operate on the primacy of existence premise as opposed to the primacy of consciousness premise.
This is a relative truth. Does an A.I that pops up left and right in different data sets exists because it thinks?
Your argument is predicated on the existence of such code, but duration of consciousness is irrelevent to its existence.
Duration of existence is everything. This is what makes everything relative. Time itself is relative thus no existence can be absolute.