Relativism - What Is The Truth? - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Relativism - What Is The Truth?

Posted by Krypton on Mar-23-2005 00:15:

Relativism - What Is The Truth?

Thesis - Relativism is false because truth is absolute.

Scientifically, a law of physics is not relative. it is absolute. u drop an apple it will always fall.

Logically, relativism is self-contradictory. "Truth is relative." For this to be true, this statement would have to be absolute. so you would have to absolutely state that relativism is true. but if there are no absolutes, then the statement, "Truth is relative." is false.

Posted by George Smiley on Mar-23-2005 00:33:

Re: Relativism - What Is The Truth?

quote:
Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk::
Thesis - Relativism is false because truth is absolute.

Scientifically, a law of physics is not relative. it is absolute. u drop an apple it will always fall.

Logically, relativism is self-contradictory. "Truth is relative." For this to be true, this statement would have to be absolute. so you would have to absolutely state that relativism is true. but if there are no absolutes, then the statement, "Truth is relative." is false.

I bet you'd have chosen the right door in the Labyrinth!!!

Posted by St_Andrew on Mar-23-2005 02:06:

If you studied physics you would know that not everything is relative.

Posted by Krypton on Mar-23-2005 02:23:

quote:
Originally posted by St_Andrew
If you studied physics you would know that not everything is relative.

quote:
Scientifically, a law of physics is not relative.

i never said it was relative :\

Posted by Sunsnail on Mar-23-2005 03:55:

Re: Relativism - What Is The Truth?

Posted by trancaholic on Mar-23-2005 17:22:

Re: Relativism - What Is The Truth?

quote:
Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk::
Scientifically, a law of physics is not relative. it is absolute. u drop an apple it will always fall.

How do you know? I bet you can't argue for this without ending up with a circular argument - or one that is dereft of logical soundness.

quote:
Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk::
Logically, relativism is self-contradictory. "Truth is relative." For this to be true, this statement would have to be absolute. so you would have to absolutely state that relativism is true. but if there are no absolutes, then the statement, "Truth is relative." is false.

This only makes sense if relativism should apply to *everything*, which was not a part of your stated assumption. Relativism could definately be true of things other than relativism (e.g. "George Bush is evil" is a truth to some and a lie to others). Your argument here resembles Aristotle's argument why the law of the excluded middle cannot be proven false (almost to the letter) - and is just as flawed.

Posted by MisterOpus1 on Mar-23-2005 20:50:

Spent too much time on the Schiavo post, so I don't have too much time left for this thread today. Aside of tranceaholic's insight, I'll attempt to answer the statements you posed:

quote:
Thesis - Relativism is false because truth is absolute.

Scientifically, a law of physics is not relative. it is absolute. u drop an apple it will always fall.

Not necessarily so. Quantum physics has clearly shown that certain principles are not necessarily "absolute" as we may want to believe. Rather, they merely show a high probability of being so.

But for now I'll grant your statement and use this as a working definition of something being "absolute".

quote:
Logically, relativism is self-contradictory. "Truth is relative." For this to be true, this statement would have to be absolute. so you would have to absolutely state that relativism is true. but if there are no absolutes, then the statement, "Truth is relative." is false.

Gotta admit - I would dust off my old Logic 101 college book to dive very deep into this statement. As tranceaholic suggested, does your definition of "relativism" apply to everything? If so, you need to make that argument that it does and explain in detail exactly how.

But what's more, if I grant your working definition of "absolutism", i.e. physical laws above, then you cannot create the "if" statement of "if there are no absolutes". I grant you that there are - i.e. physical laws.

So where to go from here? Will you, perhaps logically demonstrate other possibilities outside of physical laws that exemplify absolutism? If so, explain in detail.