Relativism and skepticism are logical suicide

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Love and truth aren’t absolutes.

Easy to say… Prove it…

Mmm. Let me see. Do you love your kids more than you love having a beer? If love is absolute it means it isn’t relative. It’s the same for everyone under all circumstances.

So…lose the beer or lose the kids. Which is it?

 

[Elf01]

So…lose the beer or lose the kids. Which is it?

An alcholic may choose to lose their kids rather than the beer.

 

[EndTimes]

Mmm. Let me see. Do you love your kids more than you love having a beer? If love is absolute it means it isn’t relative. It’s the same for everyone under all circumstances.

So…lose the beer or lose the kids. Which is it?

mmmm… You’re not using Love in the Agape GOD=LOVE sense…

Ergo … your attempt to disprove Absolute aka Prove Relativism is it? Falls Flat…

Without possessing any Absolute . such arguments cannot be True.

AnyThing Else?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

So…lose the beer or lose the kids. Which is it?

An alcholic may choose to lose their kids rather than the beer.

So being an alcoholic is one of the conditions we need to consider in making the determination?

 

[EndTimes]

If love is absolute it means it isn’t relative.

Mmm. Let me see. Do you love your kids more than you love having a beer? If love is absolute it means it isn’t relative. It’s the same for everyone under all circumstances.

So…lose the beer or lose the kids. Which is it?

Non-applicable Analogy and therefore N/A Question…

You’ve employed “love” in the Philia/Storge sense and not in the Agape sense

Philia, in today’s terms, would resemble something like “brotherly love.” It was about showing loyalty, giving sacrifice, showing appreciation, and other more “noble” forms of love not involving sex.

There is also another type of love that sort of falls into Philia, depending on how you look at it, called storge.

Storge is the love that is inherent, for example the love between parents and their children.

Agape Love is sometimes referred to in modern times as universal love, charity, or even altruism

It is in this Manner that GOD=LOVE is understood by those with FAITH

)

 

[Elf01]

So being an alcoholic is one of the conditions we need to consider in making the determination?

Just pointing out that not everyone will make what you see as an obvious choice.

 

[Dan123]

Just pointing out that not everyone will make what you see as an obvious choice.

I think that’s part of his point, not everyone would make the same choice, ergo what’s ‘absolute’ about it.

Regardless EndTimes is trying to clarify the definition of love being used in reference to absolute love so I’m not sure it’s relevant.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

So being an alcoholic is one of the conditions we need to consider in making the determination?

Just pointing out that not everyone will make what you see as an obvious choice.

Quite right. They’ll make choices based on the pertinent conditions. Relative to those conditions.

 

[EndTimes]

Regardless EndTimes is trying to clarify the definition of love being used in reference to absolute love so I’m not sure it’s relevant.

And… Without Absolutes such as Truth, Relativism AND Skepticism cannot support themselves…

Plato … destroyed Sophism…

And Sophism … still has adherents.

 

[Dan123]

And… Without Absolutes such as Truth, Relativism AND Skepticism cannot support themselves…

Skepticism simply deals with when you should accept claims about truth it doesn’t say truth doesn’t exist. Relativism typically deals with questions of morality not ‘truth’ in general.

 

[EndTimes]

Skepticism simply deals with when you should accept claims about truth it doesn’t say truth doesn’t exist. —

Relativism typically deals with questions of morality not ‘truth’ in general.

Yes… Skeptics are Skeptical - even when it comes to pure Yes or No issues.

It matters naught whether or not relativists engage in questions of ‘truth’,
for underlying their relativism foundation…
there is no universal, objective truth according to relativism…

So even their arguments are spouted as being as if definitely “true”…
Which can easily be torpedoed by another… in an oxymoronic manner…

_

 

[AlNg]

Love and truth aren’t absolutes.

Relativism typically deals with questions of morality not ‘truth’ in general.

I think that some truths are relative while others are absolute.
Examples:
1 + 1 = 2 An absolute truth.
Parallel lines never meet. A truth relative to Euclidean geometry.
For moral truths:
The death penalty is wrong. A truth relative to the current society.
It is risque for a woman to wear a bikini at the beach.
True in Islamic countries, but false in France. I.e., a relative truth.

 

[EndTimes]

All that is true… are sub-parts of Truth.

 

[Dan123]

Yes… Skeptics are Skeptical - even when it comes to pure Yes or No issues.

It matters naught whether or not relativists engage in questions of ‘truth’,
for underlying their relativism foundation…
there is no universal, objective truth according to relativism…

So even their arguments are spouted as being as if definitely “true”…
Which can easily be torpedoed by another… in an oxymoronic manner…

Again it’s not ALL truth, you’re just strawmanning the philosophy so it’s easier to argue against. And having a yes or no question doesn’t mean it’s a simple question.

Consider the question “Was is good for the US to have dropped a nuclear weapon on Japan in World War 2?”. Now consider how your answer might differ if you were a US infantryman serving during the war vs if you were a Japanese civilian during the same time. What’s the absolute truth of that question?

 

[EndTimes]

Consider the question “Was is good for the US to have dropped a nuclear weapon on Japan in World War 2?”.

Good? No. and I believe God knows the Truth of that sort of question

Truisms…

Some are Qualitative as with maths-related notions.
and some are Qualities.

When you are in Pain… Are you Truly in Pain?

 

[AlNg]

“Was is good for the US to have dropped a nuclear weapon on Japan in World War 2?”. … What’s the absolute truth of that question?

IMHO, it was absolutely wrong. And it was absolutely unjustified. There is nothing good about murdering innocent children to attain some possible goal in the future.

 

[Dan123]

IMHO, it was absolutely wrong. And it was absolutely unjustified.

I’d tend to see it the same, and I’d agree, in my opinion. But I don’t know if that’s enough to consider that “absolute” truth in the sense EndTimes keeps citing. It did end the war, likely years earlier than it would have otherwise, during which untold numbers of people on both sides would have perished. I may not think that outweighs the death that did occur but is that absolute? No idea, and if someone wanted to argue it was the better choice I would listen, and likely disagree.

The truth relativism deals with concerns the truths we actually deal with. If there’s a higher truth revealed to us when we die, so be it. Until then I can understand someone better when I consider the framework they’re coming from, and why they would look at a situation and see it differently.

 

[EndTimes]

And having a yes or no question doesn’t mean it’s a simple question.

Simple or not is besides the Question…

Some Questions are Yes or No…

Big Questions? Such as Does the God of Abraham Exist as shown in the Bible?

A SKEPTIC?

Would probably wind up being a Fence-Sitter - even thought The Answer Cannot be The Fence!

Seems ‘better’ to take a leap - rather than always remain in Skepticstan w/such Questions

_

 

[Dan123]

A SKEPTIC?

Would probably wind up being a Fence-Sitter - even thought The Answer Cannot be The Fence!

Seems ‘better’ to take a leap - rather than always remain in Skepticstan w/such Questions

If the God you mention doesn’t exist then we don’t know what the rules are. What if there is a God but he punishes non-believers less harshly than false believers? Would be better to be on the fence in that scenario.

I personally appreciate the quote below describing the agnostic atheist (which despite the way the terms are often used, is most atheists I know):

If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist… if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist – an agnostic-atheist – an atheist because an agnostic… while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other… - Robert Flint, in his Croall Lecture of 1887–1888

 

[EndTimes]

If the God you mention doesn’t exist then we don’t know what the rules are.

Totally UnTrue…

It’s very easy to learn the “Rules” of the God of Abraham… and also the Legion of Philosophies

We’ve the choice to accept, reject or remain ‘lukewarm’ (on the Fence)

Ultimately - and to maintain simplicity ---- That God either IS … or IS NOT…

To Be or Not to Be? That IS the Question? <kidding…?>

In Truth? You seem? An Agnostic…

And that’s OK … It’s your (current) opinion… and I’m not any sort of Judge…

And on a related note - how about Anarchism? …

The connection between relativism and /or nihilism and anarchism
is that people who don’t acknowledge the validity of transcendental or universal moral codes don’t feel bound by them, and thus don’t see the authority and hierarchies such codes justify as valid either.

To them. Murder? They can’t be bothered to answer what is meaningless to a full-blown Anarchist