Absolute truth?

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

igm wrote:

JLNobody wrote:

That sounds right to me.
"Absolute" and "relative" are interdependent constructs. We can't have one without the other. If that is so, the "Truth", cannot reference the Totality, i.e., the universe's "Reality" without transcending that distlinction.
...something like that.

Seems on the right track to me also.

The first step for walking that path is realizing that all being and its nothingness, just like relativity and absoluteness, permanently become each other.

disagree

since being and nothingness are complete opposites ( being has substance while nothingness , is a concept )

whereas relativity and absoluteness are both based on substance , and are not concept based or imagination

2 Replies

@north,

Your logic is intact; they are contradictions.

3 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

...Imagination and concept have to be substantiated in order for them to be thought of...don´t leave your lessons half way through...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Lessons are best served when they are simple to comprehend.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Your logic is intact; they are contradictions.

I'd say they were all concepts, therefore what was stated is not a contradiction in that respect. So can you show they are not all concepts?

1 Reply

@igm,

I agree; they are both concepts. Concepts do not exist without the being; therefore there is nothing. Humans are late-comers to this planet. Concepts about nothingness did not exist for humans until evolution "created" humans to think and communicate. Without humans, the concept of nothingness would not exist; they are opposites.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

...14 billion years ago it was true that such concepts would be possible through man and mind...their substance is not in their happening which is the phenomena but in their possibility, in Being which is the noumena...concepts are part of the World...and the World is not just today....concepts always were !
...your greenhorn knowledge is short sited, as many times is mine and everyone else, all to often we can´t see past the evident and the immediate...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

...the concept of absence itself is the concept always relative to a temporal absence of something...something which in the negation, in the phenomenological contrast, is transcendentally recognized to be...nothingness as pure nothingness, the absence of Being, is meaningless...a matter of understanding...Nothingness as an absolute, as more then a simple timely partial absence, is nothing at all !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I disagree; without humans concepts would not exist. Our ability to communicate makes concepts to exist.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

...for instance we say, my shoes are missing, are absent...or my watch, or my family, or anything else...when we say it we are recognizing there are shoes and watch and family´s...even if we say everything is absent we are recognizing a point in time in which everything existed...now given an infinite amount of time whatever was possible will have a bigger then zero chance of repeating itself (high/low entropy rearrangements)...that which potentially can exist, and existed, will always exist !

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

...the thing is humans are possible and exist, as concepts in them are possible to exist even before they come to be...you still did n´t get my point did you ?

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

...the WHERE concepts are possible refers to location, location refers to an explicative contextualization of meaning, phenomena and its place in time and space...Being is about what is possible and thus what is atemporal...what always will be true ! (concepts are not squared circles)

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I disagree; without humans concepts would not exist. Our ability to communicate makes concepts to exist.

The ability to think creates concepts therefore the ability to communicate would be secondary. We could not know if a sentient being was thinking unless it communicated with another sentient being. If it didn't then it could still have concepts but not be communicating or its form of communication could be unknown to us. So your argument doesn't follow it only shows that what we are discussing are concepts. Also, the notion that any sentient being is more than a concept is a concept even if it is a widely held belief that a being is a truly existent entity.

1 Reply

@igm,

Without humans, their wouldn't be any communication of ideas. Whether communication is "secondary" to humans is not important; it exists.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Without humans, their wouldn't be any communication of ideas. Whether communication is "secondary" to humans is not important; it exists.

What part of a human is not understood or communicated as a concept? Can you show anyone the actual being and not your idea of what a being is?

1 Reply

@igm,

You're an example of "being."

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You're an example of "being."

Define 'being'?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Take away humans, and all concepts about nothingness disappear.

1 Reply

@igm,

I already did; you're an example of being. Simple; no further explanations are required.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I already did; you're an example of being. Simple; no further explanations are required.

I have no way of knowing your concept of 'being' is the same as mine. How can I agree that no further explanation is needed if I don't know what your definition of 'being' is?

1 Reply

Absolute truth?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know