There are no absolutes

[DividedsGhost]

I heard someone use a philosophical argument today that irked me because I don't see how it makes any sense. I've heard the argument used that the statement "There are no absolutes." is an absolute statement. However, it doesn't make sense mathematically to say so and represents a paradox if considered as an absolute statement.

To explain why: consider an infinite set of data that holds all the types of absolute statements that someone could make or have in the world. Then we could say that everything outside of that set is not an absolute statement - the negation of that set and this represents a dualism as well. The negation would be thought of as all the absolute statements that could be made into non-absolute statements.

So, for example, the absolute statement "An IEE would befriend everyone they meet." would have a negated non-absolute statement of "Not all IEEs would befriend everyone they meet."

Then if we are to say that absolute statements do not exist, then that also implies that statements that are not absolutes do not exist as well.

The problem then is if we assume that the statement "There are no absolutes." is an absolute statement, then the negation "There are absolutes." is also an absolute statement. This statement has no absolute/non-absolute negation, so it doesn't belong to the set of absolutes/non-absolutes, and can only be used to express belief in there being absolutes and non-absolutes or neither absolutes and non-absolutes and is thus a separate thing entirely.

For anyone that understands what I'm doing here, can you find anything wrong with my analysis?

Edit: Well unless we take every statement a person makes as indicative of an absolute statement. But then it's kind of pointless to even talk about it?

[717495]

I would have to agree with Ashton on this one.

[MisterNi]

I heard someone use a philosophical argument today that irked me because I don't see how it makes any sense. I've heard the argument used that the statement "There are no absolutes." is an absolute statement. However, it doesn't make sense mathematically to say so and represents a paradox if considered as an absolute statement.

To explain why: consider an infinite set of data that holds all the types of absolute statements that someone could make or have in the world. Then we could say that everything outside of that set is not an absolute statement - the negation of that set and this represents a dualism as well. The negation would be thought of as all the absolute statements that could be made into non-absolute statements.

So, for example, the absolute statement "An IEE would befriend everyone they meet." would have a negated non-absolute statement of "Not all IEEs would befriend everyone they meet."

Then if we are to say that absolute statements do not exist, then that also implies that statements that are not absolutes do not exist as well.

The problem then is if we assume that the statement "There are no absolutes." is an absolute statement, then the negation "There are absolutes." is also an absolute statement. This statement has no absolute/non-absolute negation, so it doesn't belong to the set of absolutes/non-absolutes, and can only be used to express belief in there being absolutes and non-absolutes or neither absolutes and non-absolutes and is thus a separate thing entirely.

For anyone that understands what I'm doing here, can you find anything wrong with my analysis?

Edit: Well unless we take every statement a person makes as indicative of an absolute statement. But then it's kind of pointless to even talk about it?

Yeah, this is one of those paradoxes that people either don't think about or don't realize they're making an absolute statement when they say something like, "There are no absolutes."

I mean, why drive yourself crazy over flawed recursive logic.

[munenori2]

I heard someone use a philosophical argument today that irked me because I don't see how it makes any sense. I've heard the argument used that the statement "There are no absolutes." is an absolute statement. However, it doesn't make sense mathematically to say so and represents a paradox if considered as an absolute statement.

To explain why: consider an infinite set of data that holds all the types of absolute statements that someone could make or have in the world. Then we could say that everything outside of that set is not an absolute statement - the negation of that set and this represents a dualism as well. The negation would be thought of as all the absolute statements that could be made into non-absolute statements.

So, for example, the absolute statement "An IEE would befriend everyone they meet." would have a negated non-absolute statement of "Not all IEEs would befriend everyone they meet."

Then if we are to say that absolute statements do not exist, then that also implies that statements that are not absolutes do not exist as well.

The problem then is if we assume that the statement "There are no absolutes." is an absolute statement, then the negation "There are absolutes." is also an absolute statement. This statement has no absolute/non-absolute negation, so it doesn't belong to the set of absolutes/non-absolutes, and can only be used to express belief in there being absolutes and non-absolutes or neither absolutes and non-absolutes and is thus a separate thing entirely.

For anyone that understands what I'm doing here, can you find anything wrong with my analysis?

Edit: Well unless we take every statement a person makes as indicative of an absolute statement. But then it's kind of pointless to even talk about it?

Stuff like this makes me think a lot but I'm never too sure about what I come up with being right. I think there are absolute statements, though I'm not sure if I'm talking about in a totality of all statements or just taken in subsets. Or something. Not sure it makes sense. Axioms I think can be contingent, but within a system they're absolute from a perspective of "given this, then..." based off of the intrinsic connective and causal properties of whatever's being talked about. Or maybe that's to say that causal relations are asserted, and conclusions drawn. Wow idk, been celebrating moving into a new apartment and finding out one of my cats didn't escape out into the repressive heat and get all dessicated. Yay!

[Begoner]

For anyone that understands what I'm doing here, can you find anything wrong with my analysis?

Yes -- that it doesn't make sense. It could possibly make sense if you used more precise language, but it's hard to decipher in its current state. For example, you say:

The negation would be thought of as all the absolute statements that could be made into non-absolute statements.

But this isn't true; the set of negated statements represents all the non-absolute statements that can be formed by negating absolute statements. Obviously, this isn't a major error, and I could still understand what you meant (at least, I think I understood). The point is that errors in reasoning become more apparent when everything is presented clearly. You go on to say:

Then if we are to say that absolute statements do not exist, then that also implies that statements that are not absolutes do not exist as well.

I have no idea whatsoever how you deduced this. Did you assume that every statement is either an absolute statement or its negation? If so, why? It would seem that neither "I like spinach" nor "I do not like spinach" are absolute statements, so this is an odd assumption to make. Contrariwise, if you did not make such an assumption, how did you reach this conclusion?

Leaving aside the issue of particular leaps of logic, I think the main problem with your reasoning (if I understood it correctly) is that you conflated the veracity of a statement with its absoluteness. The statement "There are no absolute statements." is clearly a false statement, but it is nevertheless absolute.

[Ave]

For anyone that understands what I'm doing here, can you find anything wrong with my analysis?

Statements are not reality. The phenomena cannot be known through senses, why would it be known through our mouths?

[squark]

It's just words Magna. They can be rearranged and changed. "There are no absolutes" is the same statement as "Everything has an exception." Just choose different words that mean the same thing and see if that clarifies anything for you.

[krieger]

sometimes you are just wrong. sorry.

[Jonathan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox

Actually, I mention Russell's paradox only because of the similarity to the analysis above regarding self-reference. If interpreted in a strict logical sense, "there are no absolutes" isn't a true paradox; it's merely demonstrably false. All true statements are absolutely true. Therefore a statement that there are no absolutes is equivalent to saying that all statements are false. But if we can at least regard "if X is true then X is true" as being true, then "all statements are false" is false.

It's similar to the liar's paradox, except that it asserts not only that it's false itself, but also that all other statements are false as well.

I think though that when people say "there are no absolutes," what they really mean is "In real life, there are exceptions to most rules."

[Hitta]

The whole argument about whether or not there are absolutes is dependent on the whole framework of reality and why we exist. The human mind fragments reality into dualized components to give meaning to objects in the space time continuum. If someone were to give you a black piece of paper, and asked you whether or not the paper was completely black, you'd have two options. A) either accept the commonsense representation of what black is or B) Logically attempt to determine if the item is black. If you did B) you would probably come to the conclusion that the item is not completely black as there are some aspects and shades of the arrangement of colors that could have less and less color. The reasoning for this is because for a void of colors to exist and entire array of colors has to exist as well(white). Black cannot exist because for black to exist it has to be identifiable. If one can identify the black then there has to be some color gradient that allows for the human eye to pick it up. True white cannot exist for the human eye to comprehend white one must have something to contrast it with. All these things to the human mind follow this same dualized structure as things are always in a constant conflict between being and not being.

[tcaudilllg]

Absolutes are relative.

[Creepy-male]

because the statement is a paradox it in itself is not absolute, derp

[The Ineffable]

The problem then is if we assume that the statement "There are no absolutes." is an absolute statement, then the negation "There are absolutes." is also an absolute statement. This statement has no absolute/non-absolute negation, so it doesn't belong to the set of absolutes/non-absolutes, and can only be used to express belief in there being absolutes and non-absolutes or neither absolutes and non-absolutes and is thus a separate thing entirely.

That's because the true contradiction of an universal statement is a particular one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_of_opposition. You haven't made just a negation, but changed the quantification as well. We intuitively know that this is the "true negation", though it is more than that, and it should not be confused with generic negations. The four statements would be:

"There are no absolutes" ("Every thing is not absolute") ∀a, a⇒¬P
"Everything is absolute" ∀a, a⇒P
"There are things that are absolute" ∃a a⇒P
"There are things that are not absolute" ∃a, a⇒¬P

The true contradiction comes between an universal and its particular, not between an universal (or particular) and its negation, the bold:

- "All As are P" VS "No As are P" ("All As are not P") - okay, it is absurd to compare the two and obviously they can't be both true, one of them may be true but both can be false anyway (contraries).
- "Some As are P" VS "No As are P" - now, certainly one of the statements is true and the other is false. One is actually the total negation of the other, the two are contradictory.
---

Partially-related, I mention it because the issue is way greater than this case, and this application gives a concrete example:

An analogous situation is the understanding of a psyche ring in Model A, this is where these rules I found most useful so far. People don't understand and don't care why and how a specific Ego function is conflicting with another. For instance, we know that the IEs, among other rules, negate each other in pairs, but in the Model there's more than that: while the Role function is a fallback for the Base, the PoLR is something normally unacceptable. In fact, a common mistake is to believe that "Fe-PoLR" means "not Fe" - case in which Te Creative would have conflicted with all Fe Egos -, while it actually means "not Fe-Base"!

[DividedsGhost]

sometimes you are just wrong. sorry.

if I thought I was right, I wouldn't ask you if I'm wrong.

sometimes you are just wrong. sorry.

because the statement is a paradox it in itself is not absolute, derp

ah yes, the derp - the intellectual mark of the idiot. I hereby recognize your inability to make an argument while acting like child. *bows*

The problem then is if we assume that the statement "There are no absolutes." is an absolute statement, then the negation "There are absolutes." is also an absolute statement. This statement has no absolute/non-absolute negation, so it doesn't belong to the set of absolutes/non-absolutes, and can only be used to express belief in there being absolutes and non-absolutes or neither absolutes and non-absolutes and is thus a separate thing entirely.

That's because the true contradiction of an universal statement is a particular one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_of_opposition. You haven't made just a negation, but changed the quantification as well. We intuitively know that this is the "true negation", though it is more than that, and it should not be confused with generic negations. The four statements would be:

"There are no absolutes" ("Every thing is not absolute") ∀a, a⇒¬P
"Everything is absolute" ∀a, a⇒P
"There are things that are absolute" ∃a a⇒P
"There are things that are not absolute" ∃a, a⇒¬P

The true contradiction comes between an universal and its particular, not between an universal (or particular) and its negation, the bold:

- "All As are P" VS "No As are P" ("All As are not P") - okay, it is absurd to compare the two and obviously they can't be both true, one of them may be true but both can be false anyway (contraries).
- "Some As are P" VS "No As are P" - now, certainly one of the statements is true and the other is false. One is actually the total negation of the other, the two are contradictory.
---

Partially-related, I mention it because the issue is way greater than this case, and this application gives a concrete example:

An analogous situation is the understanding of a psyche ring in Model A, this is where these rules I found most useful so far. People don't understand and don't care why and how a specific Ego function is conflicting with another. For instance, we know that the IEs, among other rules, negate each other in pairs, but in the Model there's more than that: while the Role function is a fallback for the Base, the PoLR is something normally unacceptable. In fact, a common mistake is to believe that "Fe-PoLR" means "not Fe" - case in which Te Creative would have conflicted with all Fe Egos -, while it actually means "not Fe-Base"!

I'm not actually suggesting anything in between the two sets though. The definition of an absolute is that which is true; for something to be true, then something must also be false. This is the basis of my argument - a binary arrangement.

Do we disagree on this basic principle?

The problem then is if we assume that the statement "There are no absolutes." is an absolute statement, then the negation "There are absolutes." is also an absolute statement. This statement has no absolute/non-absolute negation, so it doesn't belong to the set of absolutes/non-absolutes, and can only be used to express belief in there being absolutes and non-absolutes or neither absolutes and non-absolutes and is thus a separate thing entirely.

I don't think it's hard to understand why these two statements are both absolutes, which is why I left the reasoning out. But I'll explain in case it's important:

There are no absolutes: considers reality as only continuously - one big process and the idea of absolutes as always an estimation on their own.
There are absolutes: considers reality as the infinite sum of discontinuous parts (absolutes) and the idea of absolutes as pieces that help make up a whole truth, even if never 100% accurate on their own.

Both talk about the same things - a continuous reality. But both reach them in different ways. Both can even appreciate the other, but has different beliefs about the usefulness of the other's logical consistency. So if I suggest one is false, then the other must be false; and if I suggest one is true, then the other must be true. It merely is a matter of belief regarding the same thing.

[Nico1e]

I heard someone use a philosophical argument today that irked me because I don't see how it makes any sense. I've heard the argument used that the statement "There are no absolutes." is an absolute statement. However, it doesn't make sense mathematically to say so and represents a paradox if considered as an absolute statement.

I'm curious, what was the person talking about? What did they say that caused either you, or them, or somebody, to respond with 'There are no absolutes?' What kind of situation were they talking about? Who was it that wanted to say 'there are no absolutes,' you, or them? Was this other person making absolute statements, and you were trying to argue against them? Or were they telling you not to make absolute statements? Who told whom and why?

When I think of people making absolute statements in a way that I find offensive, it's when they say 'Everyone in this category does this, and YOU are in that category, therefore you're bad,' or something like that. That's just one example.

What's the definition of 'absolute,' anyway? What exactly does that word mean? I can't even talk about this unless I know what somebody means by that word.

To explain why: consider an infinite set of data that holds all the types of absolute statements that someone could make or have in the world. Then we could say that everything outside of that set is not an absolute statement - the negation of that set and this represents a dualism as well. The negation would be thought of as all the absolute statements that could be made into non-absolute statements.

So, for example, the absolute statement "An IEE would befriend everyone they meet." would have a negated non-absolute statement of "Not all IEEs would befriend everyone they meet."

Yeah, and actually, there are infinity possible ways to negate the statement. Some IEEs befriend everyone they meet. Some IEEs befriend some people they meet. Some IEEs befriend some people they do not meet. Some IEEs do not befriend, but rather, go out on a date with, every single person they meet. (And no, I'm not saying that's true, I'm just messing with the sentence.) Every single word in the sentence can be changed somehow. You can make exceptions to every little piece of it. Use words like 'some,' 'many,' and so on.

I can imagine someone saying, 'This person isn't an IEE, because they're not befriending a large number of people, and IEEs typically befriend a large number of people.' (Speaking of which, my old best friend in high school was an IEE, and she was an 'unpopular' person who had an extremely small number of friends.) How many friends is 'typical' for an IEE? Is there a 'lower limit' to how many friends an IEE can have? What about an IEE who's been locked in prison their entire life and hasn't had an opportunity to meet anyone? Are they another personality type while they're locked in prison? Are they not an IEE during the phase when they have only 2, or 3, friends, but they suddenly transform into an IEE after they've gotten 4 friends?

Then if we are to say that absolute statements do not exist, then that also implies that statements that are not absolutes do not exist as well.

The 'statements' exist. We can say them. We can use them in logical calculations. However, the statements might not accurately reflect things that happen in the real world. There is a difference between making a logical statement, versus observing something that happens.

Yes, you're still making a statement if you say 'some people do this.' It's still a statement. Sometimes we have to ask 'What do you mean by "some?" Approximately how many is that? Is it a lot, or a little? Can we count them?' And another useful thing to do is ask the question, 'WHY are these particular people doing something different from everyone else in the category?' If there are exceptions to the general rule, perhaps there's a reason why, and perhaps that reason is important.

The problem then is if we assume that the statement "There are no absolutes." is an absolute statement, then the negation "There are absolutes." is also an absolute statement. This statement has no absolute/non-absolute negation, so it doesn't belong to the set of absolutes/non-absolutes, and can only be used to express belief in there being absolutes and non-absolutes or neither absolutes and non-absolutes and is thus a separate thing entirely.

For anyone that understands what I'm doing here, can you find anything wrong with my analysis?

Edit: Well unless we take every statement a person makes as indicative of an absolute statement. But then it's kind of pointless to even talk about it?

Every word that you say, every statement, every moment of your life, is based on something that you felt with your senses. You can't walk across the floor without assuming on faith that the floor will still be there when you take your next step. Behind everything we do, there are things we assume on faith because we sense them. You can't speak a sentence without assuming something on faith. You have to assume that the other person accepts the definitions of the words that you speak. If they are using a different definition for a word, then the definitions need to be clarified. But eventually all words refer to some object or process in the real world, or were originally inspired by something real. What does that have to do with 'absolutes?' 'Absolutes' and 'assumptions' are very similar.

Ayn Rand talked about this. 'Existence exists' was the 'absolute statement' that she used to fight against the people who were debating whether or not reality is real, or if it's a dream world, or what. There are some things we can only know through our senses. We know we exist, because we feel it. There is no point in worrying about whether or not we really exist - it's more important to worry about what we need to do now that we're here. She complained in her books about people who were saying there are no absolutes, because she said physical reality is an absolute. For instance if someone gets injured badly enough, they will die, and when that death happens, it is an 'absolute' - they can't get their body back. One might argue about whether or not their spirit lives on, but their body is destroyed.

The point of that is, I learned to say 'There are absolutes... and that's okay.'

Sorry, I think I probably added more confusion. I am in one of my extremely long-winded moods today.

Anyway... so I wonder what was the topic of discussion that made you or the other person say 'there are no absolutes?' Was it a discussion of how IEEs behave or something else?

[Creepy-male]

ah yes, the derp - the intellectual mark of the idiot. I hereby recognize your inability to make an argument while acting like child. *bows*

Fucking dick, you are not entitled to an answer to your question and I have the right to make a joke.

Go kill yourself.

[Ave]

Absolutes are relative.

Prove it, dipshit!

[Hitta]

Answering the question on whether or not there are absolutes is impossible. The reason being is the fabric of reality is based on a separation of the human mind from the environment which creates dualized aspects of each other. The example I gave earlier on white v.s. black basically translates into everything v.s. nothing. The human mind creates a boundary based negative field causing borders that turn energy into objects and create separation between objects in the space time continuum. The way the human mind works is it assigns meaning to all objects in its field of reference that is stored in the memory. When someone encounters a new experience, it basically takes previous memories and combines them to assemble what we know as new information even though it is dependent on old experiences which all originated from the origins of single celled organism and the beginning of the universe.

For example, when you look at a chair, you think of all the properties that the chair has in relation to past experiences. There is no chair without the human mind giving meaning to the chair... What is the purpose of the chair? What kind of chair do I like? These boundaries cause isolation points and focus which causes imbalance which makes it impossible to completely penetrate into the definition of an object as the object has different meaning from other spectators. This makes proofs impossible and relativity completely un-provable as ones mind cannot engross the entire objective plane. Absolution v.s. truth relativity is kind of like the self/other divide where both sides of the coin are dependent on each other and ultimately define each other.

[Hitta]

In the end, everything is gray. Life can't really be defined. Everything is just meaning.

[Creepy-male]

^ Yea I agree with all of that but it hardly does any justice to the concept of evolution or the origin of life.

Assuming a more materialistic view of things, people evolved from previous species, which evolved from simpler organisms, reptiles, and then before that ocean borne entities, and before that simple organisms consisting of multiple cells working together synergistically. Before that single celled organisms consisting of organelles working together synergistically, and at the heart of this DNA and protein, which were a result of chemical -- not biological evolution and provided the seeds for biology. The chemicals themselves coming from the stars.

So essentially all evolution can be traced back to stars, the evolution of star systems. When you begin to go that far back, there is no divide between the mind and reality -- the mind doesn't exist, at least in the way people typically refer to it. Further when you move forward from there a mind must be created from which there must be new experiences.

Further the question of consciousness comes to mind, the evolution of life. If our consciousness and free will is real and not an illusion, then when did this consciousness appear. Was it breathed into humans by some supreme being or has it always been there and we as people are too blind to see it around us? Then again another possibility is consciousness is an illusion -- the result of a biological robot attempting to process its own existence, we are fated, free will is an illusion and we are fated to deceive ourselves in believing in it.

Either way free will or fate, the mind at some time must have evolved, either as a new module to the biological robot, or as a medium between our spirit/consciousness and physical reality.

I'm bent on the concept of consciousness being real and existing in all things, so I'd probably claim the mind is a naturally evolving aspect. The result of the spirit and consciousness trying to connect with physical reality in a more direct sense... the mind also being related to the will. With simple organisms and non-sentient things, the bridge between consciousness and reality is weak and thus their is hardly any perception of a will, the thing merely exists with an essence of sorts. With sentient beings, the bridge between consciousness and reality is strong though, there is a clear sense of will, but this will can potentially create an imbalance in the natural essence of things, causing feedback to the consciousness/spirit which then leads to an impetus of a new sense of will. What people typically view as fate is this feedback, the universe responding to one's will, the interaction of other entities with the self. Internal conflict is the result of one's internal system being out of balance, it is a sense of fate over being incapable and faulty as an individual. External conflict is the result of one being out of balance with the world outside, it is a sense of fate over one's circumstances.

[Absurd]

[Hitta]

^ Yea I agree with all of that but it hardly does any justice to the concept of evolution or the origin of life.

Assuming a more materialistic view of things, people evolved from previous species, which evolved from simpler organisms, reptiles, and then before that ocean borne entities, and before that simple organisms consisting of multiple cells working together synergistically. Before that single celled organisms consisting of organelles working together synergistically, and at the heart of this DNA and protein, which were a result of chemical -- not biological evolution and provided the seeds for biology. The chemicals themselves coming from the stars.

So essentially all evolution can be traced back to stars, the evolution of star systems. When you begin to go that far back, there is no divide between the mind and reality -- the mind doesn't exist, at least in the way people typically refer to it. Further when you move forward from there a mind must be created from which there must be new experiences.

You know, many people constantly ask... "why do we exist? what is the point of this?" Yet no one really asks why not. Why not exist? If every possible thing could occur... if we are just a moment in the sphere of every possible consequence...... then our existence sort of defines itself. Why not exist.... is there any alternate from your viewpoint? In the end, we just exist because we exist. Just a moment in every possible scenario of arrangement.

[Creepy-male]

^ Yea I agree with all of that but it hardly does any justice to the concept of evolution or the origin of life.

Assuming a more materialistic view of things, people evolved from previous species, which evolved from simpler organisms, reptiles, and then before that ocean borne entities, and before that simple organisms consisting of multiple cells working together synergistically. Before that single celled organisms consisting of organelles working together synergistically, and at the heart of this DNA and protein, which were a result of chemical -- not biological evolution and provided the seeds for biology. The chemicals themselves coming from the stars.

So essentially all evolution can be traced back to stars, the evolution of star systems. When you begin to go that far back, there is no divide between the mind and reality -- the mind doesn't exist, at least in the way people typically refer to it. Further when you move forward from there a mind must be created from which there must be new experiences.

You know, many people constantly ask... "why do we exist? what is the point of this?" Yet no one really asks why not. Why not exist? If every possible thing could occur... if we are just a moment in the sphere of every possible consequence...... then our existence sort of defines itself. Why not exist.... is there any alternate from your viewpoint? In the end, we just exist because we exist. Just a moment in every possible scenario for arrangement.

lol I'm not saying their is a clear purpose to existence, people that conceive of evolution like this are a little odd I think. I see evolution as a story, rather than as some goal that is trying to be achieved. It's hard to define reality in terms of a clear purpose as I think its hard to truely know a goal until it is achieved. I'm much more in tune with concept of life existing with a drive and not an explicitely defined goal.

When most people ask "why do we exist", "what is the meaning of life", it seems to me they are attempting to ellicit that goal in order to find the drive to move forward, the will the carry on with life. If only they knew why we were here they could easily implement that and validate their efforts as not being worthless. It's largely beside the point though as the goal is to exist and carry on the story. Let things naturally evolve, as life moves forward, will creates meaning and meaning creates will... its like an electromagnetic wave, the electricity creating the magnetism and the magnetism creating the electricity. This kind of back and forth can mentally manifest itself in the sort of paradoxical questions being posed here..... "There are no absolutes is an absolute!!!!!" which makes it untrue, which refutes the statement which no long invalidates it which recreates the paradox, and so forth and so forth.... which came first the chicken or the egg? does an electrical field create a magnetic one or does the magnetic one create the electric one????? who cares...... its just an expression of existential juxstapositions.

[Hitta]

You know, many people constantly ask... "why do we exist? what is the point of this?" Yet no one really asks why not. Why not exist? If every possible thing could occur... if we are just a moment in the sphere of every possible consequence...... then our existence sort of defines itself. Why not exist.... is there any alternate from your viewpoint? In the end, we just exist because we exist. Just a moment in every possible scenario for arrangement.

lol I'm not saying their is a clear purpose to existence, people that conceive of evolution like this are a little odd I think. I see evolution as a story, rather than as some goal that is trying to be achieved. It's hard to define reality in terms of a clear purpose as I think its hard to truely know a goal until it is achieved. I'm much more in tune with concept of life existing with a drive and not an explicitely defined goal.

When most people ask "why do we exist", "what is the meaning of life", it seems to me they are attempting to ellicit that goal in order to find the drive to move forward, the will the carry on with life. If only they knew why we were here they could easily implement that and validate their efforts as not being worthless. It's largely beside the point though as the goal is to exist and carry on the story. Let things naturally evolve, as life moves forward, will creates meaning and meaning creates will.

I thought you meant more from an origin of existence itself in a metaphysical sense rather than on a scientific one.

[Hitta]

Alpha philosophy power hour.

Eventually you will run out of criticisms and put your feet in the water.

[Creepy-male]

Alpha philosophy power hour.

Eventually you will run out of criticisms and put your feet in the water.

I found the comment kind of amusing *shrugs*

I'm hitting the sack... and no that doesn't mean I'm sucking dick, it means I'm about to go to sleep (just to clarify for the idiomatically-challenged)

[The Ineffable]

I'm not actually suggesting anything in between the two sets though. The definition of an absolute is that which is true; for something to be true, then something must also be false. This is the basis of my argument - a binary arrangement.

Do we disagree on this basic principle?

Not only that we disagree, but you are wrong in your premises. Since you claim external support from the definitions and logic, you need to comply with them.

I see those assumptions of yours on both opposites and absolute as simplistic and equivocal, almost poetic:

- you don't specify explicitly whether you're talking about the absolutes in general or the particular case of the universal sentence "absolutes don't exist". Indeed the sentence creates a paradox, but what comes after that in the OP is different.
- "absolute" doesn't mean only "true", relative truth exists. It must also be complete, independent. Nevertheless, your examples are examples of universal statements [1] that you also negate, but overlooking the quantifiers. Simply negating "An IEE would befriend everyone they meet" is not "Not all IEEs would befriend everyone they meet", but "An IEE would befriend no one they meet", which is universal as well. You may not have suggested "anything in between the two sets", but I am, that rule of merely two sets is uncalled for.
- the statement "There are no absolutes" does not mean "absolute statements don't exist", rather "absolute statements are false". Basically you here import the statements themselves as elements of the totality of absolutes, but why? Absolutes may not exist, though it's still plausible to exist absolute statements, except they are false.

Returning to the paragraph I quoted, you make the assertion that "There are absolutes" is also an absolute statement and that it has no absolute/non-absolute negation. Why one, why the other? In my opinion, your inference is merely grammatical, if we talk about universal/particular (please please specify your meaning, if otherwise), then the latter statement is not of the same kind with the former (it is actually particular), and its negation is either a negative particular ("There are non-absolutes") or a negative universal (the original statement), if you choose to invert the quantifier as well as you did the first time.
---

[1] - I don't really agree with the usage of this term here, "absolute". By absolutes I understand the parts of statements that don't depend on anything else, and when they are restricted to those parts, the statements are absolute themselves. For instance, in "John walks home" or "John talks about his family", walks and talks are absolute ("John walks" and "John talks" are absolute statements), they don't depend on whether he was actually walking home or another direction, ans respectively whther he was talking about a certain subject or not. So the topic actually deals with whether universals exist or not, though in normal language we can use "absolutes", provided we don't make any equivocation, condition you don't appear willing to respect. Please explain clearly what's your understanding in each notion and why, for instance what makes in your opinion both "There are no absolutes" and "There are absolutes", and everything else that is ambiguous or a bare assetion, as objected above.