Does absolute truth exist?

[Tom Sawyer]

Not isn't a complex word. You can look it up.

at least you acknowledge the context I provided. call it nonsense ? what are you calling nonsense, a context? seriously....pfft

Yes, because you're saying that the context is somehow not relevant to the situation. If something is true in a certain context, then its a truth and how it would be in a different context isn't relevant to that truth.

 

[none]

at least you acknowledge the context I provided. call it nonsense ? what are you calling nonsense, a context? seriously....pfft

Yes, because you're saying that the context is somehow not relevant to the situation. If something is true in a certain context, then its a truth and how it would be in a different context isn't relevant to that truth.

I guess you missed the FIRST SENTENCE in the OP.

 

[Kharakov]

Yes, because you're saying that the context is somehow not relevant to the situation. If something is true in a certain context, then its a truth and how it would be in a different context isn't relevant to that truth.

I guess you missed the FIRST SENTENCE in the OP.

Is that an absolutely or relatively true statement?

 

[none]

I guess you missed the FIRST SENTENCE in the OP.

Is that an absolutely or relatively true statement?

I'd say relative, but good enough to define absolute truth.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yes, because you're saying that the context is somehow not relevant to the situation. If something is true in a certain context, then its a truth and how it would be in a different context isn't relevant to that truth.

I guess you missed the FIRST SENTENCE in the OP.

Ok, I'd call that sentence invalid as regards absolute truths then. You weren't describing what absolute truths were.

For instance, if sound waves travel at X miles per hour through the air then how fast they travel through the water isn't relevant to that. If you change one aspect of the situation then you change the situation and the other situations are just different things.

 

[none]

I guess you missed the FIRST SENTENCE in the OP.

Ok, I'd call that sentence invalid as regards absolute truths then. You weren't describing what absolute truths were.

For instance, if sound waves travel at X miles per hour through the air then how fast they travel through the water isn't relevant to that. If you change one aspect of the situation then you change the situation and the other situations are just different things.

wow, you'd call it invalid and then try to change the subject, wow.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ok, I'd call that sentence invalid as regards absolute truths then. You weren't describing what absolute truths were.

For instance, if sound waves travel at X miles per hour through the air then how fast they travel through the water isn't relevant to that. If you change one aspect of the situation then you change the situation and the other situations are just different things.

wow, you'd call it invalid and then try to change the subject, wow.

Eh? You're describing something that's unrelated to absolute truths and then using that invalid definition to dismiss things which are truths.

It's like pointing to a blue shirt and then saying that it proves that red shirts don't exist because they're not blue.

You have an invalid premise and that's the problem with things having different conclusions, not the conclusions themselves.

 

[none]

no I am saying those truths are not truths in a context where they are not truths.... keep you eye on the words.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And your premise that something needs to be true across all contexts to be an absolute truth instead of the context being part of the truth statement is still invalid.

I've kept an eye on your words and your words are saying something wrong.

 

[none]

And your premise that something needs to be true across all contexts to be an absolute truth instead of the context being part of the truth statement is still invalid.

your opinion is noted, I admitted to that other wackloon that there might be different definitons of absolute truth.
who cares?
I got one definition in the OP that seems good enough.

I've kept an eye on your words and your words are saying something wrong.

oh so now you are going to unveil the password...
is this something I got to trust you on? take your word for?

 

[untermensche]

I guess you missed the FIRST SENTENCE in the OP.

Ok, I'd call that sentence invalid as regards absolute truths then. You weren't describing what absolute truths were.

For instance, if sound waves travel at X miles per hour through the air then how fast they travel through the water isn't relevant to that. If you change one aspect of the situation then you change the situation and the other situations are just different things.

This is very close to the nonsense contained in the OP.

There are no magical "contexts" in which truths are not true.

It is a childish idea that as we see, goes absolutely nowhere.

 

[none]

Ok, I'd call that sentence invalid as regards absolute truths then. You weren't describing what absolute truths were.

For instance, if sound waves travel at X miles per hour through the air then how fast they travel through the water isn't relevant to that. If you change one aspect of the situation then you change the situation and the other situations are just different things.

This is very close to the nonsense contained in the OP.

There are no magical "contexts" in which truths are not true.

It is a childish idea that as we see, goes absolutely nowhere.

yeah I wouldn't call the contexts that invalidate any statement of truth magical either. ( I am just feeding off your denials ).
but I would call a context that invalidates a statement of truth legitimate, although we could use other words... ha

 

[untermensche]

yeah I wouldn't call the contexts that invalidate any statement of truth magical either. ( I am just feeding off your denials ).
but I would call a context that invalidates a statement of truth legitimate, although we could use other words... ha

There are no such contexts.

There is only one context available to us. The context of our present existence. This is the only context in which we can rationally talk about truth.

Talking about imaginary contexts, whatever that could possibly mean, is as useful as talking about the habits of the gods.

 

[none]

yeah I wouldn't call the contexts that invalidate any statement of truth magical either. ( I am just feeding off your denials ).
but I would call a context that invalidates a statement of truth legitimate, although we could use other words... ha

There are no such contexts.

There is only one context available to us. The context of our present existence. This is the only context in which we can rationally talk about truth.

Talking about imaginary contexts, whatever that could possibly mean, is as useful as talking about the habits of the gods.

blah blah blah,
in the story of harry potter is he a man or boy or both or neither?
if he is neither then you can't conceptualize very well.
here is an exercise for you:
in context 1 a is a
in context 2 a is b
in context 3 a is c

 

[untermensche]

There are no such contexts.

There is only one context available to us. The context of our present existence. This is the only context in which we can rationally talk about truth.

Talking about imaginary contexts, whatever that could possibly mean, is as useful as talking about the habits of the gods.

blah blah blah,
in the story of harry potter is he a man or boy or both or neither?
if he is neither then you can't conceptualize very well.
here is an exercise for you:
in context 1 a is a
in context 2 a is b
in context 3 a is c

You seem to have become unhinged.

This is incoherent.

 

[none]

blah blah blah,
in the story of harry potter is he a man or boy or both or neither?
if he is neither then you can't conceptualize very well.
here is an exercise for you:
in context 1 a is a
in context 2 a is b
in context 3 a is c

You seem to have become unhinged.

This is incoherent.

reduced you to personal attacks... I guess you won't be saying absolute truth exists, fine have it your way

 

[Kharakov]

blah blah blah,
in the story of harry potter is he a man or boy or both or neither?
if he is neither then you can't conceptualize very well.
here is an exercise for you:
in context 1 a is a
in context 2 a is b
in context 3 a is c

This is incoherent.

Is the statement "this is incoherent" self referential in your post?

How can you possibly not understand that none means that in some cases, context changes over time, so things that are true at one point in time, in a specific context, are not true at another?

In other words, some truths are relative. In regards to absolute truth, there is a very simple one:

It is absolutely true, and will always be absolutely true that someone existed at some point in the history of everything whether or not there is a witness to this fact.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

There are no such contexts.

There is only one context available to us. The context of our present existence. This is the only context in which we can rationally talk about truth.

Talking about imaginary contexts, whatever that could possibly mean, is as useful as talking about the habits of the gods.

blah blah blah,
in the story of harry potter is he a man or boy or both or neither?
if he is neither then you can't conceptualize very well.
here is an exercise for you:
in context 1 a is a
in context 2 a is b
in context 3 a is c

But that's just because you're generalizing away the truth you're referring to. If you get more specific, you can have statements such as "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is the story of an eleven year old boy's first year at wizard school".

There are no contexts under which that isn't a true statement. The fact that he grows from a boy into a man over the course of the series doesn't change that you can have absolute truths in reference to aspects of the series.

 

[bilby]

blah blah blah,
in the story of harry potter is he a man or boy or both or neither?
if he is neither then you can't conceptualize very well.
here is an exercise for you:
in context 1 a is a
in context 2 a is b
in context 3 a is c

But that's just because you're generalizing away the truth you're referring to. If you get more specific, you can have statements such as "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is the story of an eleven year old boy's first year at wizard school".

There are no contexts under which that isn't a true statement. The fact that he grows from a boy into a man over the course of the series doesn't change that you can have absolute truths in reference to aspects of the series.

That is not true outside North America, where the story is known by its original title, "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone".

Apparently the Hollywood executives had never heard of 'The Philosopher's Stone' and thought Americans would not understand what they were on about. To which my response is 'Who the fuck has ever heard of "The Sorcerer's Stone"? That's not even a thing'.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Fine. "The first book of the Harry Potter series" then. It's a moot distinction.