|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:00 pm
We all know this saying
Nothing is set in stone: meaning that nothing is set at creation.
If that is true then if nothing is set in stone the fact that nothing is set in stone isnt set in stone. Meaning that If nothing is set in stone how is that a fact if it isnt set in stone itself.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:31 pm
Hahaha! xd That is a good observation of a logical impossibility. (Though I don't think the saying necessarily had an implication of "at creation", more it was "at any time ever." This doesn't invalidate your point at all though, in fact I think it strengthens it. whee )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:09 pm
A good example of a Liar's Paradox.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:37 am
And even if something is set in stone, the stone could break, meaning that whatever's set in stone doesn't matter. Anyway, interesting way to confuse people. biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 9:50 am
Well, the way I see it, nothing is set in stone, until you set it there yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 1:25 pm
Ah, but people develop over time. You are not the exact same person reading this that you were when you first typed that post. You've had extra experiences in that time which may alter you and your knowledge. You can be very much the same person, but not EXACTLY the same. For example, suppose you were concerned with something like people not hurting their children. You said this was ALWAYS wrong (this is you "setting it in stone") and one day you heard about a mother who had beaten her son in the headlines of the news paper. You immediately got very angry at this woman -- what she did was very wrong -- but then you later read the article and find the son had attacked her first and she had beaten him in order to get a weapon out of his hand to keep him from possibly killing her. She was defending herself. Your "set in stone" answer had not taken into account the occasional necessity of self-defense of parents against their children. Now what? You can change it to take that into account, but it just shows you still hadn't set anything in stone even for yourself. Or, if you want an example that doesn't require having made an oversight such as forgetting self-defense, how about you made a decision based on something and decided it and "set it in stone" only for a big scientific advancement to be made proving your old decision to be based on false information?
Even if you personally decide to set something in stone for yourself that isn't enough. While I think some things will always hold true (be "set in stone") it's not because I decided they were. ninja
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 8:29 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 8:32 pm
But wait...if what you said about the saying not set in stone is false since it itself is not set in stone, does that make your whole point false considering your statement is not set in stone itself? stare ...just something to ponder...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:49 am
I believe he means to say that just saying "nothing is set in stone" is a statement that can not possibly be true because it would be self defeating. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:39 am
Ha-
Not to long ago, my brother and myself were discussing something along those lines.
Something to the affect:
There's an exception to every rule
What's the exception to that rule?
Aah, paradoxes.
xD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 12:37 am
If the unexamined life is not worth living...
...is ignorance really bliss?? rofl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:08 pm
What you seem to be dealing with is a perspective problem. I am a firmly entrenched relativist. Relativism argues that nothing is necessarily true for all people at all times. On the other hand truths can exist but it may differ from person to person or culture to culture. Now according to your first post one might say, "How can no truth be universal? Wouldn't that have to be a universal truth?" The answer to that is very relativist one as well. To become a relativist one must decide at some point that it is universally true that all no truth is universal. The moment one comes to that conclusion though that truth becomes relative to the person because they are now a relativist. At that point it doesn't matter whether or not it is in some belief patterns considered a paradox because any statement and belief involving it is relative to the person making the statement or holding the belief.
I hope that was a comprehendable counter example to your initial statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:58 pm
And I am a firmly entrenched non-relativist who sees not how that relates to the post before you or the initial post of this thread. surprised You've also become utterly unintelligible and therefore making meaningless statements in that you have said at a minimum one thing which is logically contradictory and therefore impossible: "it is universally true that no truth is universal." You've in fact actually run right into the problem other people have been talking about here -- a paradox, a statement which defeats itself, like saying "it is true that I am lying." You say it doesn't matter that in "some beliefs systems" (AKA the rules of how reality works that you just don't want to openly admit to) it is a pardox because to you all you have to do is say to yourself "paradox is a legitimate form of argument!" and therefore in your little world it is. You see, you've also committed the logical fallacy begging the question here. You basically have said that relativism works on the principle of subjective reality and reality is subjective because you as a realativist say so. You gave no real reason for anybody to believe it or "decide this into truth" beyond your saying so. You may be a "firmly entrenched relativist" now, but you weren't always. Before you were a relativist, you were like most fairly normally thinking people. This means you needed to believe you had actual logical reasons to believe relativism was true. So, do tell, what made you decide to go from reality based thinking to living all by your lonesome in candy land where you're always right and anything goes? You see, this is a fatal flaw in relativism -- you can't get there without going through the land of actual logic first. There must be at least semi-rational reasons for people who are not relativists (at least not yet) to do anything, including become a relativist. "Because it is fun and easy and I said so" have never been legitimate logical reasons to do anything, including especially have logic defeat itself. Relativism presupposes its own truth to be possible and circular reasoning won't convince anybody operating on logic of anything. So unless you can tell me some grand story of how and why you came to believe relativism that is not the reasons you gave in your previous post, I believe I am justified in assuming you were just some person who just didn't have the stamina to stand up to living rationally and out of fear and/or laziness decided to take up relativism because it meant anything you wanted to be true was automatically so and you'd never have to worry or think too hard or keep your facts straight again, it was all even less than an issue of "mind over matter" it was "all mind, ignore matter."
P.S., I'll tell you the same thing I've told other people who claim relativism: truth is a word that is driven from reality, to claim truth is relative is to claim reality is relative. If truth and therefore reality are really whatever you want them to be, I'd love to see you decide you can fly and see if gravity decided you could too. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
