truth:
relative or absolute in nature?
if truth is absolute there exist propositions which are ‘just plain true’, that is, they have a property of ‘truth’ which exists regardless of our perspective of knowledge or opinion on the issue.
if truth is relative then all propositions stand in relation to a certain normative framework (ie that of an individual, society, culture etc.)
therefore, in the relativist view truth is NOT a property, but rather a relation between a proposition and a framework.

NoTheory:

1. any theory (such as relativism) must include a set of claims or assertions

2. for any proposition ‘X’, to assert ‘X’ is to claim ‘X’ is true. if we use ‘X’ to mean relativism we have a problem

3. relativists cannot claim ‘X’ (ie relativism) to be true because nothing is ‘just plain’ true, instead ‘X’ is only true within in context ‘C’. so

4. the relativist must then claim that ‘X’ is true relative to context ‘C’ . however this claim itself relies on an assertion of ‘just plain truth’ because what the relativist is really claiming is the proposition that “X is true relative to C” is true.

5. they cannot do that

6. so they must again assert a frame work for making the claim that “x is true relative to C”. in other words they must claim that the proposition ” X is true relative to C” is true relative to some perspective C2.

7. you see the problem: we’ve entered an infinitly recursive loop. we never answer the question “from what perspective is that true?”

8. Either relativism is self contradictory (as it assumes that relativism is just plain true) or relativism never actually arrives at any assertion, therefore failing (1) and not qualifying as a theory.

9. Its only gay if your balls touch.

altruism is impossible. any moral action we preform can always be argued as effectively self-serving (the default argument being: action X brings you satisfaction, hence you preform it despite any harm which befalls you personally).

my cat stella wants to note: this is not a discussion of what constitutes morality. just for one hot minute, accept your christian friends as “right’ about what morals are.

the question regards actions. can there be moral action which is not self serving in some way.

i do not agree or disagree with this argument yet. however, i was unable to defeat it 3 glasses of delicious Rosemount Estate Shiraz wine and 7 cigarettes later.

what do YOU think?

the guardian is my most favourite and trusted news paper in the world.
golden liberal darling of the british press.

dear fucking god:

Armed and dangerous - Flipper the firing dolphin let loose by Katrina

grok?

the end of this evening is extremely fucking nigh. and thus certain concessions must be made. the ability for proof reading and coherent thought are greatly lessened at 3:55am with aderol scortching the mind. however the mind has been scortched and at least to some degree the clock: she does not lie.

thoughts i have encountered:

the absolute relativist:
the absoulte relativist understands morality as an outgrowth (a non-necessary one) of human evolution. thus to put it as succinctly as possiple: the nazi’s == the democrats == stalin == anna frank. there is no good and bad. after all, we invented those things right? we decided muder was bad right? isnt just because we believe in money that it exists? isnt just becase society tells us so that we believe we shouldnt rape one another? like whoa, anarchism is key.

do we exist?
a question centuries old and centuries evasive.
many have had a lot to say. many smarter than i.
however my recent thoughts are as follows:
the question is invalid in its current form. a definition cannot contain that term which it strives to define. thus to define a being we must ask: what is a being? ( a being used as something which exists) however the “is” in that question corrupts the whole concept as we are using the term for existense in our quest to determine what existence is.
we all know what existence is we are doing it. if i said to you, that there tree exists you would know what i was trying to convey to you. yet we must remember that concepts exist in the same way as you or i. 2 + 2 = 5 exists and will always regardless of our exsitence (as will silly playful theorms about triangles and squares and the like). the existence of ideas is central. however i am not summizing the Cogito for you here. after a considerable number of Pabst Blue Ribbon with monseur Descartes last weekend we decided he was quite happily retired. Heiddeger lended some ideas but his english left something to be desired. Thus with a belly full of cheap beer and a head full of wiskey my associates and i have decieded to puruse and new course. a new anti-ontological science free of the onitc and even less full of beings of beings in being. the new science of anti-ontology, or nihilology shall aim as its sole goal to categorize all those things which do not exist. who knows what we shall find. we are know excepting donations on paypal and at shady gas station nearest you.