I was talking to a friend and he insists everything is relative, that good and bad are just relative, and he started rambling about quantum mechanics.
I said that most of the science nowadays is bullshit and that scientists invent stuff to make sense of faulty theories and that evil and good isn't relative, and that truth exists outside of our perception. Truth exists outside of us, in the world, and he says he doesn't agree.
I'm tired of relativism, not everything is valid and it's what's destroying the civilized world.
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
You can evidence things only up to a point where doubting it would be unreasonable for all practical purposes. You can never have the absolute 100% truth.
Is that the absolute truth?
>Is everything relative?
Yes, because everything we know and think is filtered through our senses and brain.
An objective truth may well exist, but we can't grasp it. Arguably, it inherently can't be grasped.
>I'm tired of relativism, not everything is valid and it's what's destroying the civilized world.
This isn't really an issue of relativism though. In fact, you could argue the opposite, that it's people looking for objective truth being immobilized by the realization of how subjective their views are.
Relativism doesn't imply that I must accept other points of view. If anything it implies that I could one-sidedly decide that my views ought to be dominant with no care for the worth of anyone else's ideas, which an objectivist can't really do.
Yes, everything must be defined relative to another reference point. The mistake "relativists" make is to then claim that there can be no such thing as an "objective" reference point.
The claim of special and general relativity theories is that there is no such thing as a background "absolute space" used in classical mechanics as an "objective reference point" for its calculations, but then you see them constantly defining things like "local frame of reference" or hypothetical "frame of reference of the entire state of the universe" and you realize that those are just "absolute space" definitions with names changed.
The ultimate objective reference point is God.
>The ultimate objective reference point is God.
"Zero is indivisible, so that zero belief cannot be rigorously differentiated from belief in zero. It is in this sense that atheism is a religion. Not that atheism is committed to a specific conviction, quite the opposite; it is precisely the specificity of conviction that it attacks. Understood negatively it denies the false absolute of theos, but understood positively it affirms the true absolute marked by the ‘privative’ a-; the nihil from which creation proceeds, the undifferentiable cosmic zero."
"Everything has obviously gone wrong for us in order for Plato to begin with One rather than Zero. To take One as originary is to presuppose everything; such as unity, individuation, achieved form, and dogmatic plenitude. The One is the phallomorphic base of Occidental culture, in the sense that Irigaray understands it. It is the mono—of monotheism, and monotheism is condensed irreligion; the definitive patriarchal effacing of intra-uterine indifferentiation (and thus of the primary ripple from out of chaotic zero). The differentiated one is the Father, and his adorers understand nothing of religion. Even in writing the nothing, as Aquinas does, they eclipse it with absolute ego (Him). Nor is it the case that primary immanence is merely crushed with arbitrariness beneath a partially inadequate metaphorics, since—far from being neutral between the sexes—it is precisely because indifferentiation (= 0) is sexually unsegmented that it is even more feminine than the mother. The femininity of zero is uncompromised by its indifference, due to the unilateral character of individualizing deviation. Whilst zero is certainly alien to the Father, there is no differentiation from zero. Indeed, zero is so utterly vulvo-uterine that patriarchy is synonymous with irreligion (faith)."
Ok now retell all of that in a language we all can understand.
I hate when people bloate words to sound smarter. Simplicity is key.
God == Zero
Your "ultimate objective reference point" is Nothing.
It's a suicide note.
It's called an objective because that's where you are going if you make it your baseline. Religion is not for the dead, if someone wants to be nothing, just go have a nice day. If your objective is life, then your reference point is not zero.
>It's called an objective because that's where you are going if you make it your baseline.
"If death can bite it is not because it retains some fragment of a potency supposedly proper to the object, but because it remains uncaged by the inhibition objectivity entails. Death alone is utterly on the loose, howling as the dark motor of storms and epidemics. After the ruthless abstraction of all life the blank savagery of real time remains, for it is the reality of abstraction itself that is time: the desert, death, and desolator of all things. Bataille writes of ‘the ceaseless slippage of everything into nothing. If one wants, time’ [V 137], and thinks of himself as ‘a tooth of TIME’ [I 558]. It could also be said—in a more Nietzschean vein—that zero-becoming has its metaphor in a bird of prey, for which every object is a lamb."
"Reason is rotted to bits in sponge-space, because all the polar concepts which provide its structure depend upon the repression of scaling differences. Form is infested by matter, the abstract by the concrete, the transcendent by the immanent, space by time. (It is not only ideal/real, actual/virtual, infinite/finite, simple/complex that succumb, but also Euclidean/fractal, absolute/scaling, consistent/sponge.) Life is infested by death; terminally infiltrated by the unsuspendable reality of its loss. There is no integral identity or alterity, but only fuzzy sponge zones, pulsing with indeterminable communicative potencies. Not merely lethal diseases, but the disease of lethality; a labyrinth of contagion, knitted irresolvably into death."
>the undifferentiable cosmic zero
The gospel said it first when Jesus died, and an immovable stone was rolled aside in order to reveal an empty cave.
"Like zero, money is a redundant operator; adding nothing in order to make things hum. When Marx associates capital with death he is only drawing the final consequence from this correspondence. Surplus value comes out of labour-power, but surplus production comes out of nothing. This is why capital production is the consummating phase of nihilism, the liquidation of theological irreligion, the twilight of the idols. Modernity is virtual thanocracy guided insidiously by zero; the epoch of the death of God. There is no God but (only) zero—indifferentiation without unity—and *nihil* is true religion. "
"Schopenhauer remarks of the cosmic vulva (=0):
We must not even evade it, as the Indians do, by myths and meaningless words, such as reabsorption in Brahman, or the Nirvana of the Buddhists. On the contrary, we freely acknowledge that what remains after the complete abolition of the will is, for all who are still full of the will, assuredly nothing. But also conversely, to those in whom the will has turned and denied itself, this very real world with all its suns and galaxies, is—nothing [Sch II 508]."
>meaningless words
Written by a suicidal demon that wants you to define existence as "lack of existence", and make the objective of life into death. You can literally see the mind virus in these words, trying to convince you to have a nice day.
>make the objective of life into death
"The death drive is not a desire for death, but rather a hydraulic tendency to the dissipation of intensities. In its primary dynamics it is utterly alien to everything human, not least the three great pettinesses of representation, egoism, and hatred. The death drive is Freud’s beautiful account of how creativity occurs without the least effort, how life is propelled into its extravagances by the blindest and simplest of tendencies, how desire is no more problematic than a river’s search for the sea.
The hypothesis of self-preservative drives, such as we attribute to all living beings, stands in marked opposition to the idea that the life of the drives as a whole serves to bring about death. Seen in this light, the theoretical importance of the drives for self-preservation, power, and prestige diminishes greatly. They are component drives whose function is to assure that the organism shall follow its path to death, and to ward off any possible ways of returning to inorganic existence other than those which are immanent in the organism itself. We have no longer to reckon with the organism’s puzzling determination (so hard to fit into any context) to maintain its own existence in the face of every obstacle. What we are left with is the fact that the organism wants to die only in its own way. Thus these guardians of life, too, were originally the myrmidons of death. Hence arises the paradoxical situation that the organism struggles most energetically against events (dangers, in fact) which might help to attain its life’s aim rapidly – by a kind of short-circuit. Such behaviour is, however, precisely what characterizes purely drive-based as opposed to intelligent efforts."
>absolute space" definitions with names changed.
This.
A lot of what people argue about is semantics.
God is the one with the brush.
How can you say this or that isn't valid if truth is outside of your perception? That means you can't perceive truth.
Us being limited beings doesn't mean things don't exist. Having an imperfect way of perceiving reality doesn't change reality.
If someone that has a gun pointed to his head and closes his eyes, doesn't mean that the situation isn't there because he no longer sees, he will end up dying regardless.
When I go to sleep the rest of the world doesn't disappear.
This. If nothing is truth then nothing is truth, which makes itself contradictory.
>moron confuses Truth (an object) with Being True
>Having an imperfect way of perceiving reality doesn't change reality.
Assuming there actually is a reality beyond our perceptions anyway.
But still, it changes how we interact with it. Just because I see a robber doesn't mean he's actually there.
Am I gonna run away from him? Possibly off a falI can't perceive?
Point is, perception determines behaviour. Not much of a point wondering about absolute truth if what you care about is society.
>Assuming there actually is a reality beyond our perceptions anyway.
You assume that when you drink water.
>Us being limited beings doesn't mean things don't exist.
Google: "physical duality time-space".
Either space exists, and then we live in a block universe.
Or time exists, and then we could theoretically teleport anywhere instantly (given enough energy).
Either/or.
Space and time are one thing. Literally the opposite of either/or
>Space and time are one thing
Not to your perception.
They are to objective fact.
Reconcile then objectively relativity theory and quantum physics, genius.
I have never heard of someone who understood these that believed they were contradictory
>They are to objective fact.
Either you live in a timeless brick, or you are everywhere this moment now. Same thing, sure.
Go outside
No, there is an overarching truth. We can see it in your image for example, the answer is not "6" or "9" it is "paint on the floor in the shape of 6 which looks like 9 from the other direction".
And why does relativism exist? It's atheism. Postmodernism is logically consistent atheism. Christ or chaos
>good and bad are relative
Good and bad are descriptors to an effect due to an action or circumstance, an effect that affects a certain subject positively or negatively.
A man's trash is another man's treasure, what you might consider bad I might consider good. Losers and winners.
We do share common interests and thus a common "good" and "bad", stuff we can all be positively or negatively impacted by. But it remains so who is subject to it matters more than who could have been.
>quatum mechanics
An easy trap for misguided fools that do not understand the principle of uncertainty.
In order to observe the subatomic world in its aspects, we need to use subatomic particles as our tools. However doing so modifies the condition of the object of observation. Like using a ball to knock another ball so you know it's there.
But particles aren't balls they're wave objects. We wish to know both their position and momentum however we don't have the tools to do both at the sale time and each requires modifying one aspect over the other: reducing the wavelength to more accuratrly determine the position of the particle which makes us lose all length accuracy causing momentum to be inderminable or making the wavelength more wide and readable while losing all information about its position.
Small things small, hard to observe and don't act like big things.
Some occultist try to make it as if it said something about the observer somehow magically affecting the observed object through it conscious experience. No, it's not. It's entierly us having to influence to observe.
>In order to observe the subatomic world in its aspects, we need to use subatomic particles as our tools. However doing so modifies the condition of the object of observation.
In order to observe the subatomic world, we hold a 'clock' outside a black box. And there are lots of black boxes.
Yet in order to observe the universe, the 'clock' is inside it. And there's only 1 fricking universe.
Hence, fundamental incompatibility.
>scientists make shit up
Science makes observations, hypotheses and formulate theories in the process of understanding the world. The more complex and vague the observation the more strange the hypotheses and theories. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are often cited but these weren't just made up, the respond to a problematic posed by observation. They may not be what our current models describe them as but Science never claimed they were. Science doesn't claim
>evil and good
Why opposing good to evil and not bad? Umh? Good and bad are a simple metric of benefit vs detriment. Evil on the other end is a moral jugement on is determined by intent not action. As in righteous vs wicked. Or are you using a loose definition of Evil that describes tornadoes and flood as "natural evils" despite them being nonsentient? Being reduced to a simple "good" vs "bad".
>truth exists outside our perception
The concrete world does exist beyond our perception and abstraction of it. Indeed.
But so many claim having the truth when the best they have is incomplete observation used to form their opinion.
Nonetheless we are limited by our biological and physical limitations. We don't have access to everything, many things are out of reach, out of view and we lack the tools and may always will.
>not everything is valid
Certain things lack validity more than others.
>Evil on the other end is a moral jugement
"Evil" is when the slave caste proclaims their masters' "Good" descriptor to be bad. And forms their own "Good" in opposition to it, disregarding any environmental context.
-what you see is light that bounced from past events
-what you hear is also pasty event because sound has to travel
-smell is particles floating around etc.
-your nervous system is also lagged
-a significant portion of what your perceive is not even sensory but your memories superimposed to your senses for cognitive reference and perception deficit adjustments
-your mind will rewrite your memories to fit your present self(people change)
-your mind will warp these perceptions to accommodate desires, denial and traumas
-your reflection upon these perceptions will rewrite them to suit preferable conclusions
-your cultural bias will give you a lecture of these
while you could argue that God is just a cope result of those issues, you could also argue that because of these issues we can see that no one in creation is really experiencing the floor 0 of reality, and yet, this reality that we don't really experience exists.
about good and evil, as a believer i consider good and evil to be relative and good to be the good that God wants. one does not necessarily negate the other.