|
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.
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
|
Re: Relativism - What Is The Truth?
