/lit/ - Literature

>>16072147
>>there is no objective truth
Stop believing that
Easy fix

>>16072147
Accept it non-dogmatically. God is Satan. The Grand Paradox™ is a fun adventure for all souls.

>>16072151
Retard

>>16072147
the rules are too general

>>16072147
>>everything is in flux, nothing is constant
>>except for the above rule
Is that exception constant?
>>every statement is relative
>>except for the above one which is absolute
Is that exception absolute?
>>there is no objective truth
>>except the above sentence which is objectively true
Is that exception objectively true?

>>16072147
By stating that, for example, "all As are Bs" is a meta-judgement of the genus that to which A and B belong to. This would require that, of course, A and B share a genus and "all As are Bs" is valid only for that genus.

A more specific example: "all ethical judgements are relative to something" doesn't have to be relative to something because it is not an ethical statement, it's a meta ethical statement

>>16072147
>>everything is in flux, nothing is constant
>>except for the above rule

retroactively refuted by whitehead

>>16072310
>"all ethical judgements are relative to something" doesn't have to be relative to something because it is not an ethical statement, it's a meta ethical statement
That very statement, though, IS an ethical statement, as it employs an "ought."

>>16072147
brainlets and cuckolds invented type theory just for this.

>>16072329
Are you stupid? There is not an ought to be seen anywhere there.

>>16072360
>"all ethical judgements are relative to something" doesn't HAVE TO be relative to something because it is not an ethical statement, it's a meta ethical statement
Have to = ought to.

>>16072372
You are retarded, not the same guy btw. Have to is a conditional statement, not an "ought" statement you complete moron.
"Animals don't HAVE TO be mammals" is an ought statement in your retarded world.
KILL
UR
SELF

>Mom I built a box around my self how do I get out!
Just think of it a different way retard. It's not hard.

>>16072388
>"Animals don't HAVE TO be mammals" is an ought statement in your retarded world.
But that is an ought statement?

>>16072388
"Have to" is merely a stronger version of "ought to."

>>everything is in flux, nothing is constant
>>except for the above rule
That rule is also in flux as well. HOW the statement "Everything is in flux, nothing is constant" is in flux , varies, however. You are in flux, constantly gaining and losing atoms (every time you breathe you emit carbon and oxygen atoms that were, at some point, part of you, and you intake oxygen atoms that will become part of you, and then ejected), but there's no reason that flux can't theoretically continue forever, a continuous stream.

>>every statement is relative
>>except for the above one which is absolute
The statement isn't absolute, it too is relative. It's just relative to literally everything else, in various ways.

>>there is no objective truth
>>except the above sentence which is objectively true
I believe the first two propositions are completely correct, but I don't think they imply this (I would say objective truth is indeed possible, but that doesn't mean it's easy to find, understand, or convey). So, no, I would disagree, or say that it's sort of correct if you actually mean "truth is relative" or "truth can change", such that there IS objective truth, it's just you're required to look at it from certain angles to find it ("everything changes" is objective truth, but what it actually means is "changing is" as there is no real "Everything" that will always be changing because it's always changing).

panta rhei

>>16072328
Wtf butterfag made a good post?

>>16072431
>>16072417
You low-IQ fellas are fooled by surface level semantics, what you're saying is the same as saying "iron horses are obviously animals".
Retardos.

>>16072147
If objective truth is more fundamental to relative truth then you can't assert relative truths are universal so it can't assert the rest of truths are necessarily relative. By stating all truths are relative let's you get past that but it contradicts. Now you they need a mechanism to decide which is objective and which is relative which is chock full of contradictions to assert wat they do.

>>16072329
There's an equivocation here: "have to" as modality and "have to" as normativity, not the same

>>16072310
This only works for ethical judgements, though. A meta-judgement is still a judgement.

>>16072590
I'm not quite sure what you mean. That the distinction between modal "have" and normative "have" only works for ethical judgements? The sentence in question can be rephrased as:

>... it is not necessary that meta ethical judgements are relative

So, modal "have", and not normative

>>16072745
Look at which post I was replying to.

>>16072745
Yeah, my bad. I agree to a certain degree, the way I refer to "meta" is as relative to the terms and not the judgement in itself, and the type of judgement is the kind that A and B belong to. Therefore this obviously wouldn't apply to any judgment that has as a subject something that belongs to the genus of "judgements". This also does mean that one has to properly qualify what it is they're talking about:

>all physical and metaphysical entities are in flux

Instead of

>everything is in flux

This means your argument has to be more cautious and less radical but it's the only way I can think of that escapes the counterargument

>>16072328
How did he refute that ? I'm really interested

>>16072439
>but there's no reason that flux can't theoretically continue forever, a continuous stream.
Then it would not be a flux, since "flux" was here defined in opposition to "costant". That continuos stream would be costant.
>The statement isn't absolute, it too is relative. It's just relative to literally everything else, in various ways
If it is not absolute, then some statements would be absolute.

>>16072147
imo by accepting that there could be 'absolute' truths. I don't understand why people think there aren't, just because on a more specific level we are unsure what is true.