To say that 'Everything is relative.', would be making

>>8735753
>Not reading Putnam.
>Not knowing that such terms are just shorthand for something more complicated
>Literal autism taking things literally.

OP pls.

>>8735753
What if I say that "Everything is relative" is a subjective statement?

>>8735792

i'd say that subjectivity is lost on the whole my man, ever heard of hegel's zeitgeist?

>>8735753
"Even people who deny that statements can be valid or impressions clear are obliged to make use of both. You might almost say that nothing proves the validity of a statement more than finding someone forced to use it while at the same time denying that it is sound. If for instance, somebody were to deny that there is anything universally true, obviously he would have to make a statement to that effect 'Nothing is universally true'. You don't see the contradiction? It's the same as if they were to say, 'If any truth is universal, it is false.' Or, if someone were to say to you, 'Know this, nothing is knowable, everything is in doubt.' Or, 'Trust me on this one, you'll be glad you did: Nobody but nobody can be trusted.' Or, 'You learned it here first, my friend: There is nothing capable of being learned.'

- Epictetus

>>8735804

That is essentially my point.

>>8735822
So, there are two options:
1) There is no objective, everything is subjective
2) The objective can only be perceived subjectively

Either way, we can't know because that would be objective.

This is where arrogant Atheists really fail. How can ones beliefs be superior to another when they cant be objectively verifiable either way? Beliefs can only be judged subjectively, making the lauding of ones worldview over another, absurd.

>>8735841

The phrase 'is' will always denote objectivity. That is all there is to be said.

>>8735753

What do you mean by the word 'relative'?

>>8735753
The objective measure made in the statement "everything is relative" is relative. Everything, including the statement itself, is relative, and as such no objective measurement is ever proposed.

>>8735935
But the statement presupposes itself as knowledge/truth, 'Everything is relative' (this is stated as a fact, this is stated as true),

If 'everything is relative', is true;

Then that is an objective fact.

If there exists an objective fact.

Then everything, is not relative.

As the statement 'everything is relative'

is not a relative statement.

I believe this was relatively Opies point

>>8735925
>>8735935
>>8735953

It is an all too vague statement to begin with (how can you be anymore anti vague than 'everything'), everything is relative, relatives like related?

Everything exists in relation? Everything exists different to me as to you?

Well that is such an absolute statement to hold oneself by saying 'everything', as if they have thought of and seen 'everything', what are the grounds they are making such a declaration on, what is forcing them to make the leap from some expressible things as examples to everything?

We can understand the 'how do I know the red I see is the exact red you see', 'I like spicy peppers' 'I dont like spicy peppers'

But I mean 'we are on the same mass orbiting the sun as each other' 'I dont know if we are, I could be a brain in a vat'

'2+2=4' 'I have seen this real cool trick were these mathematicians can actually make 2+2=5'

'there is something instead of only nothing', 'there could be only nothing, you just dont know fer sure'

'you and I eat food', 'maybe I dont, there are some monks that supposedly havent eaten food in a really long time'

Relative to fucking what?

>>8735970
perspective.
>everything is subjective

File: 21-12-01-220px-Socrates_Louvre.jpg (20KB, 220x293px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 220x293px

>>8735753
>Sophist tells me man is the measure of things
>tell him no
BTFO

File: rosenberg.jpg (22KB, 360x450px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 360x450px

>>8735753

>all cultures are equally valid
>there is no right way of doing things, it's all relative
>so why not just say fuck it and treat our own values as absolute
>nobody will be able to complain anyway
>?????
>Third Reich

Just say "no" to relativism.

>>8737423
I'm so sick of the plebs of this board that don't start with the damn Greeks. Read Plato you cunts

>>8735970

Everything is in proportion. Unless of course everything is the same. You aren't saying that everything is the same, are you?

>>8738414
The scenario you just laid out made me a little bit hard

File: rosenberg.jpg (72KB, 386x492px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 386x492px

>>8738471

>Thereby, however, an entirely different conception of 'the truth' is alluded to: that for us truth does not mean a logical right or wrong, but rather that an organic answer be demanded of the question: fruitful or unfruitful, autonomous or constrained?"

>>8735765
This is the meme I always invoke. It's merely shorthand, I don't have time to delineate it for you. Hmph!

>>8735841
I agree that arrogance is obnoxious but at the same time you are elevating your own worldview above arrogant atheists and falling into either contradiction or hypocrisy. Nothing can be proven we must either risk being incorrect with the evidence at hand, live in hypocrisy or hold no beliefs which is impossible.

>>8735753
It's halfway relative the intention for you to even bother to write this, in De-facto, just the plain thought of how to paraphrase that 'Everything is relative.' is objective to your measurement on the thematic, deviates from actual relativity in how the linguistic sphere is within, you conform to define the relativity of your post's purpose hence you inherently derive your sentiment in your post by emulating the relativity of your own post's measurement on the theme of relativity of itself. Get wrekt.

>>8735804

Don't want to stray too off topic, but I think it's neat people were thinking at this level 2500 years ago. Epistemology didn't really pick up until the Enlightenment.