Absolute Relativity of Universalizibility (Philosophy)  

Bizness87 31M
0 posts
7/11/2006 8:04 am

Last Read:
1/3/2007 10:27 am

Absolute Relativity of Universalizibility (Philosophy)

When it comes to the issue of absolute truth, as in, that which is known beyond any doubt whatsoever, I would agree that there is very little that a human mind can ever know with absolute certainty, but I would disagree that there is nothing that can be absolutely known. I will contend, as I have at various other times on this site, that be they few, there are statements of truth that one may make and never need question the validity of. Since it is my task to prove the existence of absolute truth, I need only present one, and if it can not be somehow shown to be relative in the least way by my opponent, then I believe that my task will be a successful one. My statement is as follows:

There is something.

Now to they who have never spent much time pondering the idea of absolute truth and the possibility of such a thing, you may find this statement to be strikingly simple and almost a "duh". Of course, absolute truth could never be anything other than a "duh" statement

I would never be so bold as to venture much further than to assert that there is at least "something" because it seems that the more specific one tries to become with their absolutes, they find their statments subject to infinite possible scenarios, however extraordinary, that give the statement the possibility of being wrong, and thus not absolute. I would never assert absolutely, for example, that there are apples in my refridgerator, for it is quite possible that they are nothing more than a dream, a figment of my imagination, the manifesation of some drug I am taking, or the rendering of some complicated software program designed to deceive and pacify human beings, for all you Matrix fans.

So, it seems that only in the most general sense is one able to find absolute truth, and it is in such generality that I have found and proposed my statement of absolute truth. Few things can be said that are more simple than "There is something".

Now, I fear that my opponent is going to have a rather difficult time trying to refute this statement or somehow show it to be the least bit relative. It seems that any attempt to disprove the statement "There is something" would unavoidably prove the very validity of the statement. Any words he speaks, thoughts he has, proofs he offers, indeed, his very opening post, all enforce the truth of the statement that something exists. It seems that his task is a self-defeating one, because there is quite simply nothing he, or anyone, can do to disprove such a simple statement of truth, for as I have said, to do so is to assert the very truth it's claiming. However, I would never claim, even relatively , to know all that much, and thus am very aware that my opponent may think of someway in which my statement of truth can be shown relative - the fact that I can think of nothing does not mean that he doesn't possess the mental superiority of being able to think of that which I cannot. I am eager to hear how my opponent will approach this statement.

P.S. Note all who would read this that I did not, and would not, assert "I think therefore I am" as a statement of absolute truth, for though its very true that any concious mind can be absolutely certain of its own existence, it seems that such a claim is only absolute for that one, the one with the mind. Nobody could ever convince me absolutely that they think, or exist, because I am of course not subject to their thoughts, and recognize the possibility that everyone I know is nothing more than a massive psychological delusion. However, I believe that you can never find a concious being who wouldn't understand and completely accept the statement "There is something." I just thought I would leave this debate cogito-free, because I would have a tough time trying to convince my opponent, and anyone listening, that I absolutely exist.


The truth that "something exists" does not rely on the perceptions of an individual, but is simply validated by any and all perceptions by any and all minds - perception is of course "something". The only reliant thing is that the knowledge of the existence of "something" relies on someone being aware. I am not asserting that so and so knows something exists, I am simply asserting that something does exist - a truth not contigent on my perceptions or anyone else's, but simply a truth verified and known through anyone's perceptions. Also, the relativity of space and time have no bearing on my truth, for it doesn't matter if you're going fast or slow or from what reference point a person is at - they can always be sure that there is something. After all, relativity itself is something, is it not? To assert that everything is relative is to assert that something exists, and it is all relative

Also, popular belief has nothing to do whatsoever with the validity of my truth. If I were the only concious mind in existence, which is possible, I would still be fully convinced that there is something. Quite obviously also, I am not bothering with mathematics.

Since "something" is not reliant on but only known through perception, is not affected by any fluxations or variations in space or time, is true both if 1 or 1,000 people assert it, and has nothing to do with numerical analysis, I would like to see you counter the claim that "something exists", and figure out a way to prove that your post and thoughts don't support my assertion.

(Comments opinions and voices are not neccessarily those opinions, comments, or voices held by Biz or AdultFriendFinder/passion.com. This is a blog intended to promote the use of thinking and thought beyond lust.)

Become a member to create a blog