Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:The moment you say, 'the ball', you relativize an absolute.
But 'yes'. The ball.  'Yes',all meaning is true going by 'oneness'. Were you 'relativizing' it when you were using it as an example? The question still remains the same,is relativism absolute? No. I was absolutizing the ball. That is, my intention in the argument. But doing one thing, or focusing on one thing doesn't imply other events are not happening. There are intelligent points even outside the ball. That is, it's a combination of 'relatives' and 'absolutes'. I also think you should present the proof that I requested up there. The one you claim to have offered. Are you focusing on one thing? Your argument is you were 'absolutizing' a ball to show co-existence of 'absolutes' and 'relatives'.Without the ball,can there be relativity? You are also arguing for 'oneness'.Isn't that an absolute which facilitates the relativity? The question is simple,is relativism absolute? Even without the ball there's relativity. Yes an absolute relativizes, and vice versa. Everything is both absolute and relative. Or the correct question is; is the relative exclusive of the absolute?
|