1 edit
@FMF
Recorded as truth. I gave you a break. I didn't say truth. I implied that the WRITERS CONSIDERED IT AS TRUTH.
Now do you want to tend to the question?
A book you say is absolutely given over and filled with superstition contains much DISCRIMINATING between non-superstition and superstition, which it usually puts in a negative light.
How did the writers have the foresight to do this discriminating?
1 edit
@FMF
Okay. You're just stalling for time I guess.
Nevermind. Get out of the way and let someone ELSE give a reasoned reply.
No longer interested in yours. Thanks for nothing.
@dj2becker saidI agree it is on its face relativism is nothing but a contradiction with no escape. I believe how those who hold those views have been aptly described, as people with their feet firmly planted in nothing, thin air not grounded at all. What is being spouted here is that each of us has objective or subjective views. Individual's opinions and how people come to them are not addressing the truth statements! People have ideas, big deal who doesn't agree with that? Where the discussion is not being taken seriously is the reference of the truth claim itself! If that is true or false, that is the truth, not our opinions of it. I can claim the whole numbers 1+1=2, and through mathematics, what I think about that is a truth claim or statement. The nature of it really being actually right or wrong rests with the truth of that claim, not what I think of it. The statement itself is the topic, if true, will be true for everyone.
“Relativism reduces every element of absoluteness to relativity while making a completely illogical exception in favor of this reduction itself. Fundamentally it consists in propounding the claim that there is no truth as if this were truth or in declaring it to be absolutely true that there is nothing but the relatively true; one might just as well say that there is no lan ...[text shortened]... elativity that is declared to be the only possibility.”
-Frithjof Schuon, Logic and Transcendence
@kellyjay saidWhy are you so utterly unable to discuss this topic with somebody who disagrees with you on it, and why instead do you keep pretending to be engaged in the discourse by interacting with someone with whom you agrees? What are you afraid of? What is it about this topic that causes you to be so completely hamstrung?
I agree it is on its face relativism is nothing but a contradiction with no escape. I believe how those who hold those views have been aptly described, as people with their feet firmly planted in nothing, thin air not grounded at all. What is being spouted here is that each of us has objective or subjective views. Individual's opinions and how people come to them are not add ...[text shortened]... laim, not what I think of it. The statement itself is the topic, if true, will be true for everyone.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
@fmf saidDo you think your ‘you are entitled to your subjective opinion’ ripcord indicates that you are well able to discuss things with people you disagree with?
Why are you so utterly unable to discuss this topic with somebody who disagrees with you on it, and why instead do you keep pretending to be engaged in the discourse by interacting with someone with whom you agrees? What are you afraid of? What is it about this topic that causes you to be so completely hamstrung?
On the plus side you’re not simply playing the troll card like Dive whenever he’s up against it.
@dj2becker saidI think I have presented my perspective pretty well.
Do you think your ‘you are entitled to your subjective opinion’ ripcord indicates that you are well able to discuss things with people you disagree with?