>>18552647
Yes, it's obviously retarded as soon as you poke beyond the surface level, and it leads to broken thirdie societies where everyone is looking out only for themselves, resulting in corruption & incompetence.

>>18552647
>therefore we must tolerate different opinions!
Moral relativism does not actually say that doe.

>>18552647
>>All morality is relative, therefore we must tolerate different opinions!
That's not actually a facet of moral relativism. Tolerance has nothing to do with it.

>>18552647
>Is tolerance universally good?
>If not, then why must we tolerate others?
Because I will enforce this proposition.

Objections against relativism are often subtly circular, and people don't realize it because the premises relativism challenges are mostly unconscious for the common person.
>"There is no absolute truth"? Heh, what about that very assertion buddy???
Yeah that assertion is not absolute truth either, because words don't have absolute meaning.
>"Values are relative and should be treated so"? Heh, where do you get "should" without absolutes buddy????
From the word "values". You don't have to pretend your values are part of the fabric of this cosmos for them to have validity. That comes much, much later, if ever.

>>18552697
So moral relativist wouldn't argue that morals are relative?

>>18552708
>Yeah that assertion is not absolute truth either, because words don't have absolute meaning.
If it's not absolutely true, why should I care about what you say?

>From the word "values".
If it's not absolutely true, the why should I care about what you have to say?

>>18552728
No but they wouldn't argue others HAVE to tolerate every respective moral framework just because

>>18552728
Morals being relative does not mean you should tolerate different opinions.

>>18552733
>If it's not absolutely true, why should I care about what you say?
Why would I care what you care about? If you like truth, listen. If you only reserve your belief for "absolute" truth, God help you. I sure won't.

>>18552733
There is no absolute truth is the problem

>>18552754
But "absoute" sounds important and certain and I wanna feel importance and certainty...

>>18552754
Is that absolutely true?

>>18552762
He just answered you.

>>18552764
If there is no absoulute truth, then the statement "There is no absolute truth" is not absolutely true. If it's not absolutely true, we need not believe it.

>>18552765
That follows only if one of the premises is "we need only believe absolute truths". Which we obviously don't. You aren't born knowing an absolute truth and you aren't born being able to recognize it. You have to believe relative truths no matter if there are or aren't absolutes waiting for you down the line.

>>18552767
To put it another way, if "There is no absolute truth" is true, then the statement itself is not absolutely true, allowing for the possibility of one or more absolute truths to exist, making the statement false.

If the statement "There are no absolute truths" is false, then it is possible that there are some absolute truths.

If there are some absolute truths, then it follows that we may or ought to believe in them, in which case we would disagree with the relativist.

>if i arrange the words correctly and do a big linguistic heckin logic then i can solve for morals!
wack

>>18552775
>moral relativist when confronted with logic and reason

>>18552775
>my little autist: language is magic

>>18552774
>To put it another way
>If the statement "There are no absolute truths" is false, then it is possible that there are some absolute truths.
Yes, this is the usual Facebook layman philosopher way of putting it. And it's circular. See >>18552708. You're treating the statement as though it has to behave absolutely - either being absolutely true or absolutely false. This is not justified. The absolute nature is precisely the aspect being challenged. You're sketching a circular argument.
No single word is absolute. No proposition made of words is absolute. All statements are relative to their context and to the level of precision they may entertain in those precise contexts. There will be edge cases to all of them which will be neither really true nor false.

Doing the kind of algebra with propositions that you just tried to do versus overcoming this illusion is essentially the differences between Wittgenstein 1 and 2. Seeing words as discrete rule-based re-presentations that are either accurate or inaccurate vs seeing words as tools that work based on how you decide to use them.

>>18552779
Ok Mr. Shapiro

>>18552779
>>18552780
>get mad someone insulted my heckin word arrangements
>label them as an idealogical entity though they've given no true indication one way or another as to which camp they fall in
>truly believe in your mlgpro internet user profiling skillz
shiggy my fucking diggy

>>18552786
>No proposition made of words is absolute.
Is 2+2=4 an absolute statement?

>>18552806
Depends on how you read it. In terms of mathematics? No. If your model doesn't use the addition axiom, two plus two is meaningless. But if you read it in terms of real-world meaning? Still no. Two doesn't mean anything. It only gains real-world meaning when it quantifies something else, like two oranges or two metres from the bed to the door. That they change their practical meaning based on what they're attached to makes them some of the most relative signs out there. And their addition equally so.

It's always a shock to someone growing up in the Western post-Greek philosophical tradition that truth isn't necessarily static, context-independent and inexhaustibly certain. Those are all illusions we've been gradually gathering for thousands of years and despite there always being people who called these biases out, it's only now that we have a whole movement (postmodernists) trying to challenge the whole game. What a shame that they are who they are though.

>>18552822
Is that true only for you, or true for everyone?

>>18552647
really embarrassing thread op

>>18552825
Neither. It's true as far as these usages of the "axiom, orange, context" etc. are concerned.

What do you think is true for everyone?

>>18552834
>What do you think is true for everyone?
Absolute truths such as:
The law of identity: A=A
The law of non-contradiction: Something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same way
Mathematical truths: 2+2=4
Moral truths: Killing innocent people is wrong.
Epistemological truths: "To deny truth is to affirm it."

>>18552848
>Mathematical truths: 2+2=4
We already covered why these aren't absolute in basically any sense. It's a formula that works in some models and not in others.
>[Logical laws]
Not very different from mathematical truths above. I would like to remind the casual philosophers here that logic is a discipline. It's a study of valid inference, not an investigation of the depths of ontological being. Its laws are not about the rules of the cosmos, but about how human beings infer.
>Moral truths
Funnily enough I am most inclined to agree here.
>Epistemological truths: "To deny truth is to affirm it."
Circular in the exact same way >>18552786 and >>18552708 point out. When your position (truth existing) is challenged, you insist the objection need be reconciled with the very same position (truth existing, and being asserted by the speaker). In reality, if were no truth, he could have been wrong and correct at the same time and it would be you who fails to reconcile it because you insist on the law of excluded middle. It's sadly not the case that these modernist pseudo-objective attitudes to words and logic manage to prove their own soundness. They are leaps one way or the other.

I also want to point out that I do believe truth obviously exists and I wouldn't even really feel surprised if objective morality existed. But we don't find these things out by naively presuming our current tools are somehow "absolute". What is absolute about them? That they transcend context? That they allow us to accurately represent reality without subjective taint? That they are certain? None of these are. Words (and disciplines) don't work that way.

>>18552859
>if were no truth, he could have been wrong and correct at the same time and it would be you who fails to reconcile it because you insist on the law of excluded middle
If truth does not exist, then there is no such thing as "correct", only preferences.

>>18552862
You tried to make a valid inference there in a scenario where valid inference cannot be made, since truth would not exist and thus neither would logic (the discipline of valid infrerence). I can tell modernist premises are still very automatic in your mind and there is no shame to that, it takes even literal academics years to spot them all and weed them all out. And the motivation to go through this painful process is low since postmodernists are a wacky bunch and modernism feels much safer because it borderline fetishizes certainty.

There isn't really that much to be proved about objective vs relative ethics, but there is no shortage of texts on relativism in language. And in the sea of bullshit there are some solid gems, such as aforementioned Wittgenstein 2, which will show you that your idea of absolutes isn't really grounded in how propositions actually work. Even if you insist that language is an objective map to an objective territory (which it isn't), what is an "absolute" map? It might be incredibly accurate from a certain POV and for a certain end, but ... an "absolute" map? Does it map the history? Where people lost their virginities in the forest? What places have the furriest squirrels? These attempts to establish absolutes are, at the end of the day, a post-enlightenment neurosis that seeks logical certainty in a vain hope for psychological certainty. And neither can be acquired in real world context. Certainly not by pretending our primitive inherited improvised tools are "absolute".

>>18552877
What you just said is meaningless because your argument is that words don't have meaning. You are also wrong because you just argued against the existence of truth.

>>18552880
>your argument is that words don't have meaning
Nope. It's that words don't have "absolute" meaning. And that if you'll insist on only gathering "absolute" meanings, you will not fare well, as proven by your misunderstanding of both me and mathematics.

File: images - 2026-06-29T182523.261.jpg (26 KB, 363x550)

26 KB JPG

>>18552882
>"I don't believe in truth."
>"Anyway, here's why you're wrong..."

File: 16.png (452 KB, 536x457)

452 KB PNG

>>18552885
>I believe in truth
>Anyway, here's a fabricated quote

>>18552886
Oh, so I was correct. I accept your concession.

>>18552754
This nigga never saw the other side

>>18552780
Wittgenstein was allegedly autistic too and he literally said this.

>>18552888
>>Your quote is fabricated
>Oh so I was correct

If you're trolling me, this is actually pretty decent. If not... again, God help you.

>>18552891
By your own logic, what I said was not incorrect.

>>18552647
All paradoxes are reconcilable.
However, in the physical world, when it comes to the matters of man, might makes right.

>>18552894
You'd have to understand my logic to know. So far all you seem to be hearing is "no absolutes hence no truth", which is a complete non sequitur.

>>18552899
I don't think you understand your own logic. If all truth is relative, then what I said is true, and you can't prove otherwise.

File: Karl Popper.jpg (419 KB, 3622x1325)

419 KB JPG

>>18552647
it was all pilpul to begin with

>>18552902
>If all truth is relative, then what I said is true
Non sequitur. Are you sure you know what "relative" means besides it feeling scary and uncertain?

>>18552905
>what "relative" means
Go ahead and explain it, now that you have thrown out words having meaning and also logic itself.

>>18552906
This non-sequitur was called out in >>18552899
For someone who thinks they're defending logic and truth you sure are comfortable with invalid infrence and dishonesty... might it be that philosophy isn't your actual passion? Might it be that you're seeking the ABSOLUTE™ to soothe your own insecurities and I am now an obstacle to that?

>>18552906
grow up

>>18552912
>Might it be that you're seeking the ABSOLUTE™ to soothe your own insecurities and I am now an obstacle to that?
You haven't challenged my views in the slightest. But you seem to think that's what you're doing.

>>18552920
>All knowledge is ultimately based on that which cannot be proven
NTA, but kind of figured this was always the case.

>wdym sentences aren't absolute?
>I got absolute truths right here!
>[11 minutes later]
>Anyway, here's a non-sequitur on top of an outright lie

I don't think a thread could serve as a better warning against the modernist insecurities. Pretending to possess certainties only makes you certainly wrong.
Before settling on an epistemological (or God forbid, an ontological) position, please go to therapy. You might be surprised how oddly motivated your philosophical commitments are.

>>18552923
That meme lowkey changed my life.

>>18552925
>on top of an outright lie
Is that true?

>>18552931
Yes, truly it is.

File: hqdefault (4).jpg (17 KB, 480x360)

17 KB JPG

>>18552978
Is it relatively true, or absolutely true?

>>18553028
Figure it out, retard

>>18553030
I'm guessing relatively, in which case it is false.

>>18552822
This is cool and all but you're replying to someone asking "hey is a 3 legged stool better than a 4 legged stool" with "actually there's no stool, did you know there's more emptiness than atoms within a stool???". Maybe you're just excited about reading Wittgenstein and want to share, idk.

I'm just gonna tolerate some things and not others
It's not that deep

>>18553512
but morality isn't relative, like trannies saying gender is relative, we live in a universe of rationalist absolutes so you must be 100% tolerant or 100% intolerant with no in-between

>>18552647
Why do you retards confuse apathy with moral indignation. I don't care if some Afghan goat hearder is pimping out his 10 year old daughter to a 60 year old man, it doesn't concern me. You are making this assertion that moral relativists believe we should listen to everyone and kumbaya under the stars. Personally, I just live my own life and anyone around me doesn't register on my moral compass. As long as my own family is doing well, you can fuck off and do whatever you want.

>>18553534
Why would you care about one conscious being but not another? That 10 year old girl is no different from your own. What you mean to say is you are just another shlubby lazy nihilist.

Ironically in a way you hate the people on your "moral compass", you value them only as much as they give you the dopamine coom fulfilling some evolutionary impetus. If they fail to live up to your expectations you will abandon them, and having no real values you lack the heart and the gumption to achieve excellence and grant your family a worthy life instead of spending the rest of it in a trailer park in Albuquerque.

File: 3b5c7cec8a7486116a573d3ad(...).jpg (186 KB, 1000x1020)

186 KB JPG

>>18553534
'toss is smarter than you

>>18553549
kek

>>18553549
That doesn't prove him wrong philosophically, it only proves isolationism is impractical.

>>18553560
He made a practical statement.

>>18552647
>if you define moral relativism as something which doesn't actually matter and there are no contradictions
Leftists constantly tell on themselves wanting to enforce their delusions onto the rest of the world with violence. Cutting genitals off and gouging out skin to make fake genitals doesn't make you a woman, nor does enforcing a contradictory "fact" make it true. Fortunately you will never be in power

>>18553562
He asked a philosophical question.

>>18553523
No, I don't think I'm gonna do that.
Why must I do that?

>>18552806
Could the proposition 2+2=4 be true in a universe without cognition of any sorts?

>>18552647
Morals are not real. They only exist in relation to people and social structures. Nothing is good ir evil if there is no one there.

>>18552848
>absolute truth
>is literally axiomatically defined to be the case by mathematicians
Not a very strong argument

>>18552647
The flaw is in your own argument, you're taking an object level declaration and attempting to apply it as a meta level sentence, basically committing a domain error. It's just yet another uninteresting variation of the liar paradox.

>>18552765
>If it's not absolutely true, we need not believe it.
You clearly don't believe it, and can find many instances of people who don't believe it, so that tracks. What's the problem you're proposing?

>>18553505
I'm really not sure what you're reading into my posts. I'm saying that a good stool is relative to its environment so sometimes 3 is better and sometimes 4 is.

>>18553096
Non sequitur.
In your attempt to defend "absolute truth" you produced a falsehood. Please reconsider your premises.

>>18552647
>Moral relativism collapses the minute you apply it to itself.
No, it doesn't, you retarded pattern-matching bot.

>All morality is relative
Ok.

>therefore we must tolerate different opinions!
Doesn't follow whatsoever.

>Is tolerance universally good?
That's not what they're claiming.

>>18554485
>you're taking an object level declaration and attempting to apply it as a meta level sentence
What a clownish pseud.

>>18554485
>you're taking an object level declaration and attempting to apply it as a meta level sentence
What a sound objection.

>>18554535
>t. braindamaged pseud
Quote a "meta-level sentence" in OP's post and explain what makes it "meta-level".

Protip: you won't.

>>18554535
>t. impressive intellectual
You don't have to quote a "meta-level sentence" in OP's post and explain anything.

Protip: I love you.

>>18554485
>>18554535
>>18554542
>mentally ill pseud coping
Quote a "meta-level sentence" in OP's post and explain what makes it "meta-level".

Protip: you won't.

>>18554485
>>18554535
>>18554542
You don't have to quote a "meta-level sentence" in OP's post and explain anything.

Protip: I love you.

>>18554548
I accept your mentally ill concession.

what the fuck is happening in this thread jesus

>>18554553
Nobody was even talking to you.

>>18552647
if you believe that things which are true in all subjective frames become objectively true, you're not a realist, you're a nominalist, which guess what is a variety of relativism.

>>18554570
I accept your mentally ill concession of >>18554539 and note your profuse seething

>>18554575
Do you accept nobody was even talking to you?

File: seething_calmly.jpg (39 KB, 460x663)

39 KB JPG

>Do you accept nobody was even talking to you?

>>18554579
are you really gonna cuck out so fast dude?

No way he had that shit saved lmao

File: reddit-seethe.png (143 KB, 600x598)

143 KB PNG

>Do you accept nobody was even talking to you?
>are you really gonna cuck out so fast dude?

>>18554589
>>18554579
>>18554575
>>18554553
>>18554546
>>18554539
>>18554530
Yo, those reaction pics are fire, I concede every point I made.

No one was talking to you, animal.

he hurtin

File: redditbrained.png (116 KB, 573x597)

116 KB PNG

>he hurtin

>>18554607
BRAAAAAAAAAAP

File: MuhMorality.jpg (51 KB, 584x525)

51 KB JPG

>>18552647
>moralfagging