Absolution

CrAz3D · October 23, 2005, 02:36 PM

Ok, as I see it there are few things (if any) that are truly absolute.

Now, for my research paper I'm making a point that civil liberties aren't absolute. Does anyone know of any articles that refer to nothing being absolute in general?

Mucho thanks

EDIT:
Hmm, I've proved my point without using a single article. I just pointed out that women didnt have the right to vote & their rights were changed & now they can vote

hismajesty · October 23, 2005, 06:36 PM

You could argue that everything stems from a set of core theories and as such, all beleifs are in essence a theory. Sort of like A+B=C; C+B=A.

CrAz3D · October 23, 2005, 06:39 PM

Quote from: hismajesty[yL] on October 23, 2005, 06:36 PM
You could argue that everything stems from a set of core theories and as such, all beleifs are in essence a theory. Sort of like A+B=C; C+B=A.

Way too involved for being something that is barely focused on. I want to argue the theory of absolute civil liberties, not argue whether or not anything is absoulte

Arta · October 23, 2005, 06:58 PM

Nothing is absolute, except the lack of the absolute. QED.

CrAz3D · October 23, 2005, 07:02 PM

Quote from: Arta[vL] on October 23, 2005, 06:58 PM
Nothing is absolute, except the lack of the absolute. QED.

QED?

Kp · October 23, 2005, 07:21 PM

Quote from: CrAz3D on October 23, 2005, 07:02 PM
Quote from: Arta[vL] on October 23, 2005, 06:58 PM
Nothing is absolute, except the lack of the absolute. QED.
QED?

Quod Erat Demonstratum. Latin for "that which was to be proven."

iago · October 25, 2005, 09:23 AM

Quote from: Arta[vL] on October 23, 2005, 06:58 PM
Nothing is absolute, except the lack of the absolute. QED.

That sounds like a contradiction; therefore, the theory is false.

That's the same argument as, "Nobody can know anything for sure" "Do you know that for sure" "Yes!" "Contradiction; therefore, it's false!"

Grok · October 25, 2005, 10:35 AM

Quote from: iago on October 25, 2005, 09:23 AM
That sounds like a contradiction; therefore, the theory is false.

That's the same argument as, "Nobody can no anything for sure" "Do you know that for sure" "Yes!" "Contradiction; therefore, it's false!"

Not a contradiction. Having no person able to do anything for sure is different from knowing that you can have no person able to do anything for sure.

Arta · October 25, 2005, 06:17 PM

"Nothing is absolute" is an absolute statement, and would negate itself. Therefore, the caveat is required to make the statement sensible.

iago · October 26, 2005, 06:47 PM

Quote from: Grok on October 25, 2005, 10:35 AM
Quote from: iago on October 25, 2005, 09:23 AM
That sounds like a contradiction; therefore, the theory is false.

That's the same argument as, "Nobody can no anything for sure" "Do you know that for sure" "Yes!" "Contradiction; therefore, it's false!"

Not a contradiction. Having no person able to do anything for sure is different from knowing that you can have no person able to do anything for sure.

Sorry, I meant "know", not "no" or "do".

MyndFyre · October 26, 2005, 08:56 PM

Quote from: Arta[vL] on October 23, 2005, 06:58 PM
Nothing is absolute, except the lack of the absolute. QED.

I disagree. I believe there are absolutes, although we might not necessarily know them. That might make them pointless, but whether or not that is true, it's still so.

It'd be like saying "The sky is red." This statement is an absolute statement that carries many different assumptions (the definition of "sky," the definition of "red," and the strength of the verb "to be").

The point being, language (at least English) is imprecise, and can be misunderstood. The atmosphere of the planet refracts and reflects light in such a way that the predominant visible color seen exists within the bounds of what would be labeled by most people as "blue." That statement is true whether or not you actually believe it, your perceptions notwithstanding.