[avant-garde]

As further advances in science are being made, it seems that a singular principle is currently enveloping the western world. Relativism and absolutism do not conflict directly with each other anymore; rather, the relativist philosophy stems from a result of mathematical and scientific ignorance. Yet there are still areas such as ethics and morality that can only reside in the realm of relativism. In the end, the pursuit of happiness presides over all, whether the case be grounded on relativism or absolutism.

With that said, could there be absolute truth?

[MiddleMan]

It depends whether you're looking from the perspective of Relativism or Absolutism.

[avant-garde]

It depends whether you're looking from the perspective of Relativism or Absolutism.

Nice try but ultimately fail.

[Voltage]

okay...based on your writing style, it seems you have already made the decision for us. So I will agree with you

[MiddleMan]

Nice try but ultimately fail.

Is this the absolute truth?

[avant-garde]

Is this the absolute truth?

No, but could it possibly be the absolute truth that it is not the absolute truth?

[MiddleMan]

No, but could it possibly be the absolute truth that it is not the absolute truth?

Is this the absolute truth then?

[MiddleMan]

On post #3 of this thread, you said "Nice try but ultimately fail"

Ultimately? Implying absolute. So you do agree there is something absolute.

And on post #4, Voltage agrees with you, implying yes - to whatever the answer. Hm.. implying yes: absolutely not no.

On post #6, you said "No, but could...," meaning No, - isn't "no" an absolute value? And you continue with "could...," so there is a chance of absolute.

Then going back to post #3, I ultimately fail. Having a chance of fail and ultimately fail? You changed your mind with your answer. Yet I absolutely believe in my answer and you flip flop - So who should we believe? Yes there is an absolute, and You are just going absolutely going in circles without an answer.

Or is there no absolute answer to your question?

Or will you reply again with "could"? Giving me a chance that there is an absolute.

[avant-garde]

Mathematics is absolute. 2 + 2 will always equal 4 in any base greater than 4. Yes, there is absolute truth. Some things are, and some things aren't; anything in this universe can be reduced to boolean logic.

[lemming]

Can the idea that some people like to eat durian while listening to gangsta rap be reduced to boolean logic?

[avant-garde]

Can the idea that some people like to eat durian while listening to gangsta rap be reduced to boolean logic?

Not linguistically, but logically yes. The smaller the components you observe, the clearer the relationship between each causation becomes.

[MiddleMan]

Yes, there is absolute truth.

Thank you.

Or will you reply again with "could"? Giving me a chance that there is an absolute.

Some things are, and some things aren't

And again Thank you for agreeing with me with 'could'.

[avant-garde]

This is the least intellectual thread of my life.

[j00n]

Whatever you're smoking get back to it. Wikipedia + your Phil 101 books don't make you an expert. If you know anything about what you're talking about, you would know talking about absolutes as well as truth, and certainly in talking about absolute truth - are semantic, pointless discussions for the mindless bored. But i'll pander to it and say this: Descartes had it right. The only truth of any near absolute (that we know of so far) is that I, myself, am.

[avant-garde]

Whatever you're smoking get back to it. Wikipedia + your Phil 101 books don't make you an expert. If you know anything about what you're talking about, you would know talking about absolutes as well as truth, and certainly in talking about absolute truth - are semantic, pointless discussions for the mindless bored. But i'll pander to it and say this: Descartes had it right. The only truth of any near absolute (that we know of so far) is that I, myself, am.

You have completely missed my point by a mile. I believe that this is what I was trying to say in my original and previous posts. Except for the part about Decartes, which is yet another ambiguity based on semantics.