the first has been a reocuring thing in one of my classes namely what is love and is it in fact a real thing, the second is a recent thing in more depth on it it means can any thing in this world be defined as an absolute thing that will stand the test of time and cannot be proven wrong in any way what so ever.

Your thoughts on it all

1+1=2

Do I win? ;)

1+1=2

Do I win? ;)

No. 2+2=5 for very large values of 2.

hey i dont think anyone is gonna take you seriously lol

so far it does not seem that way so much for a 'debate'

so far it does not seem that way so much for a 'debate'

You asked is anything absolute.

I gave an answer of something that is absolute.

Quod Erat Demonstradum.

Umm, I don't think I really understand what is being asked, so I'll answer it to the best of my understanding.
Question One: What is love?
Love is a pleasurable emotion based on the positive value judgement of another person's character. All relationships involve love to an extent, but romantic love involves certain other benefits to the involved parties. I think that when you love someone romantically, that person is the fullest expression of what you value the most in life, and that is what draws you to them. This is why relationships based on looks do not last long or go well. If you love someone, then it stands to reason that this person is a value to you, and therefore, that is how relationships develop, because life is about keeping and holding values.
Question Two: Is anything absolute?
I think that reality is absolute. To have any meaningful discussion on anything, both involved parties have to accept that existance exists. If existance exists, that means that it is absolute. And if existance exists, then that means that something exists possesing identity, and you have a concioussness that is able to percive that which exists. So now we have established that all things have an absolute identity. Contradictions don't exist in reality, because things are what they are. If you have a contradiction, then either one thing or the other is wrong, because things are what they are. Drawing on the basis of that conclusion, we can safely say that everything that exists in reality is an absolute, absolute meaning that things have a definite identity. Things outside of the realm of what we can know using reason are things that are not absolute.
So, umm, if that's the questions, maybe we can debate these points that I made now.

Question Two: Is anything absolute?
I think that reality is absolute.



i wouldn't agree as reality is based on perception and not what is actually happening. If reality was absolute there would be no 'mad' people percieving the world to be different to that of what it is (thats no sound right).

anyway for two people to have a discussion they only need to belivev in what they themselves are doing and not what hte other or the universe (thus reality) around them is doing.

i wouldn't agree as reality is based on perception and not what is actually happening. If reality was absolute there would be no 'mad' people percieving the world to be different to that of what it is (thats no sound right).


Reality can be absolute without everyone's perception of reality being absolute.

i wouldn't agree as reality is based on perception and not what is actually happening. If reality was absolute there would be no 'mad' people percieving the world to be different to that of what it is (thats no sound right).


Mad people are perceiving reality. Their perception of reality is different from ours due to a involuntary hightened sensitivity to the environment around them. They are victim to more energetic influence than a healthy person would be.

Healthy people can block out unwanted garbage before it gets to their "perception" of the world around them. An analogy would be that a healthy person is the equivalent of a person wearing a radioactive suit in a radioactive environment. They are protected for the most part. A psychotic or mad person is walking through the radioactive environment without a suit and without protection and thus vulnerable to any "toxins".

Reality can be absolute without everyone's perception of reality being absolute.
Exactly. How would you know about "what was actually happening" if you were unable to percieve it? To percieve something means that there is something there to percieve, and that something is reality and the natural laws of physics. There's no choice that you have other than to exist within these natural limitations.

anyway for two people to have a discussion they only need to belivev in what they themselves are doing and not what hte other or the universe (thus reality) around them is doing.

If you aren't worried about what reality is "doing", then you don't understand the way the world operates. Let's say you were a bird, but instead of trying to fly, you tried to break your wings. A bird that did this wouldn't last very long. As such, humans' natural state is to exist within the defined limits of rationality and reality. You can't defy reality for long, because it simply is, there is no other way for humans to exist. A thing will always be itself, regardless of whether or not you are concerned with the way that it is. You can say "This computer in front of me isn't real," but it still will be, even if you try to deny it. I take it that you subscribe to the skeptical definition of certainty. I hold that certainty is belief without reason to doubt. If the sense evidence that you get from perception and deduction/induction isn't enough to convince you that reality is absolute, then I challenge you to prove that reality isn't absolute, without using evidence from the senses or deduction/induction.

Exactly. How would you know about "what was actually happening" if you were unable to percieve it? To percieve something means that there is something there to percieve, and that something is reality and the natural laws of physics. There's no choice that you have other than to exist within these natural limitations.



If you aren't worried about what reality is "doing", then you don't understand the way the world operates.

1 explain to me how the word works
2 " i think therefore i am. i think"-Rene' Descartes

i cannot prove reality does not exist/ is not absolute
but neither can one prove that reality is/is absolute
therefore to say reality is absolute is valid but so also is the conjugate of this statement (thats my opinion anyway)

1 explain to me how the word works
Huh? I'll assume that you mean "explain how the world works", and go from there. The world exists. Things are what they are. A is A, as Aristotle says. Contradictions don't exist, and therefore that is the way things have to be. Something is either wrong or right, and reality is the final arbiter that decides the truth of an issue. The rules of logic are the means by which humans live by. We derive the rules of logic from observation of that which exists. This is called induction. The rules of logic are not given to us "a priori" as many philosophers would say. Since the rules of logic give us a usable connection to the concrete reality which exists, humans are required to live by the rules of logic, as they give us a foundation of what is concretely wrong or right, since we have to exist within the limits of a concrete, absolute reality.
2 " i think therefore i am. i think"-Rene' Descartes
In my opinion, Descartes had it all wrong. The way the quote should read is "I am, therefore, I think." Existance is a prerequisite to conciousness and also to thought. Without things that exist, there would be no concept of thought, because such an idea would be useless. There would be nothing to think about, so it is a needless concept. If everyone in the world was right handed, there would be no concept of right handedness, because there would be no need for one. As such, if there was nothing that existed concretely, there would be no concept of thought, because there wouldn't be a need to think or consider anything, because there would be nothing to think about.
but neither can one prove that reality is/is absolute
therefore to say reality is absolute is valid but so also is the conjugate of this statement (thats my opinion anyway)
Touch your computer. If that isn't absolute to you, there's nothing I can do but end the discussion. You can't claim that we can be certain of nothing, because even saying that means that you are certain you can be certain of nothing, which is a logical contradiction. You also can't claim that I can't prove that I exist or that I'm concious, because proof assumes that I already exist, that I am concious, and that I have developed enough knowledge of reality to know the difference between proven and unproven, and developed the ability to prove things. If you don't trust your senses, and know that things are what they are, there's nothing I can ever do or say that will convince you otherwise. I hate to have to say this, because a bad argument is worse than no argument. All I can tell you is that contradictions don't exist, and to say that reality is and is not absolute at the same time is a contradiction. Since I have the physical and perceptual evidence of a concrete world at my disposal, I know that I am right in saying that reality is absolute. You don't trust your senses, so you can't be sure if it's absolute or not. One of us is wrong.

1 explain to me how the word works

http://homepage.mac.com/ap_llywelyn/.Pictures/equation.jpg


2 " i think therefore i am. i think"-Rene' Descartes


Great philosophy, highly applicable to us as social animals, worthless from the point of rational science.


i cannot prove reality does not exist/ is not absolute
but neither can one prove that reality is/is absolute


How about we just assume that reality is and work from there?


therefore to say reality is absolute is valid but so also is the conjugate of this statement (thats my opinion anyway)

The difference is that by assuming one we can actually make assumptions which work out in reality. Occam's Razor kicks in and the most likely situation is that reality exists and is more-or-less absolute.

ah if only you people were in my first period class when we had these book talk/ debates going^_^

First, love is just an idea like God.
Everyone can define like they want to.

Second, an absolutly true? Of course, opinions are absolutly true. Everyone can have an opinion about something, it could be different or not but they have.

First, love is just an idea like God.
Everyone can define like they want to.

Second, an absolutly true? Of course, opinions are absolutly true. Everyone can have an opinion about something, it could be different or not but they have.
...and just because they have opinions doesn't make them true.

What you just wrote it's your opinion.
Maybe it's not true or maybe is it, but the fact you just thought about it make that opinion something true.
Not the meaning but the fact you have it.

What you just wrote it's your opinion.
Maybe it's not true or maybe is it, but the fact you just thought about it make that opinion something true.
Not the meaning but the fact you have it.

It wasn't my opinion, it was a statement of fact. You can hold the opinion 1+1=4 to your heart's content, but you would still be wrong.

That I said it is functionally true, yes, but elusive concepts with respect to truth are not really the topic of discussion.

Unfortunately,there´s nothing absolute in life,not even love.

Unfortunately,there´s nothing absolute in life,not even love.
Why not? That seems a little too arbitrary for a debate.

Why not? That seems a little too arbitrary for a debate.

But it's also true...

Love is sometimes for life.. sometimes fleeting. So it isn't absolute, cos it isn't always forever.

Love does exist but cannot be defined as a single emotion but rather as a range, it isnt easily explainable and cannot be fully explained by a dictionary definition type quote. To get a definition of love you have to know the feeling and ask yourself how if love doesnt exist do you feel sad when a loved one or someone you depend on is hurt, many people will say that this is because we won't have them to depend on if something happens to them, these people are dry and probably a bit dull. Love is perhaps the most powerful of all things i know that sounds really corny but if you think of all the worst pain you feel or the greatest joy it will probably have stemmed from love. Love is not however as most things aren't absolute nothing lasts forever in my view i have no crap to back it up but thats how i feel.

I decided to put this in after typing this. Sorry if it sounds rude, but it is some thing that has gone around in my head for a while now so please do not get angery with me over it, instead debate me on it^_~. Oh and I am sorry for not being on in so long, i have had many things on my mind lately.

If you think about it misery can be said to be an absolute. Though it is not completely widespread at all times and it is fleeting it can reoccur in yours or anothers life at many times. As far as I know there is no animal on this earth that has not had some kind of misery or other happen to it at some point in it's life. And for those of you who might say " But we are human, we are different than animals", all I have to say to that is this: Take a long look in the mirror, notice any thing? What you have looking back at you is the being called homio sapien (spelling may be wrong here). This being is said to have evolved from primates. We have lost the tail we may have had at one time or other and in it's steed we have thumbs and the capabilities for what can be said to be a supirior intelligence (same here about spelling). This descines usyes i will admit. To this you could say " See we are smarter than them, we are better" to this I would say: HA!. Even though we are smarter, we are killing ourselves in larger numbers over trivial matters and we are taking every thing with us. How can a smarter animal be doing this if it is smarter? Sooner or later we will kill off every thing in this world by either overpopulation or war. Yes we are really smart aren't we?

What??? :confused:

What??? :confused: Don't beat up on iceblood. His post made sense to me. Seriously. Try again, Head. ;)

I wasn't beating up on anyone! I just couldn't follow the logic of the post, nor can I happily marry it to the point of the thread.

I read it again... nope. It's still escaping me.

If you think about it misery can be said to be an absolute. Well, that sentence uses the word "absolute", and I can see that it's tenuously connected to the "is any thing absolute" prong of this thread. Yes, the more I go back and read it, the less connected to this thread it becomes. But, but, but that doesn't degrade the value of the post to me. I really clicked with it first thing this morning when I was readning while eating my breakfast. Yes, it's not the most eloquent statement ever written, but who am I to talk about eloquence? I think what iceblood was getting at has some merit, and just wanted to validate that. Oh, and perhaps I shouldn't have said you were "beating up" on iceblood. I meant it in jest and hope you took it the same!

Here's iceblood's post in Gibberish. Is it any clearer now?
Pum pocidow te put zis din axabtol typick zis. Sellupp dib dit seucts ludo, fut dit dis semo zick zaxat whaxas keno axaleuct din vupp whoaxad bel pit hiro jed se proaxaso pe jet kot axackolupp um vo evol dit, dinchoaxad pofaxato vo en dit^_~. Eh pi Pum axam sellupp bel jet foick en din se reck, di whaxavo whaxad vaxanupp zicks en vupp vict raxatorupp.

Dib ug zint axafuk dit visolupp caxan fo saxaid te fo up axafseruto. Zeugh dit dis jet cemprotorupp widosploaxad axat axarr timos pi dit dis brootick dit caxan loeccul din yeuls el axanethols ribo axat vaxanupp timos. As baxal axas Pum gned zolo dis je axanimaxar en zis oaxalth zaxat whaxas jet whaxad semo gict eb visolupp el ethol whaxappon te dit axat semo deink din dit nud ribo. Act bel zeso eb ug he vidd saxaupp " Fut wo axalo whumaxan, wo axalo ibbolonk zaxan axanimaxars", axarr Pum whaxavo te saxaupp te zaxat dis zis: Taxako pit reck reet din zo villel, jetico axanupp zick? Haxat ug whaxavo reekick faxang axat ug dis zo foick caxarrow whemie saxapion (sporrick vaxaupp fo dreck wholo). Zis foick dis saxaid te whaxavo overvow blem plimaxatos. Wo whaxavo rech zo taxair wo vaxaupp whaxavo whaxad axat eno timo el ethol pi din dit nud choow wo whaxavo zumfs pi zo caxapaxafiritios bel haxat caxan fo saxaid te fo pit supiliel dinkorrigonco (saxamo wholo axafuk sporrick). Zis poscinos usyos di wirr axadmit. Te zis ug ceurd saxaupp " Soo wo axalo smaxaltol zaxan zom, wo axalo fottol" te zis Pum weurd saxaupp: WhA!. Ovon zeugh wo axalo smaxaltol, wo axalo girrick eulsorvos din raxalgol numfols evol sliviaxar vaxattols pi wo axalo taxakick ovolupp zick um us. Whed caxan pit smaxaltol axanimaxar fo peick zis dib dit dis smaxaltol? Seenol el raxatol wo wirr girr ebb ovolupp zick din zis welrd fupp oithol evolpepuraxatien el waxal. Yos wo axalo loi ox smaxalt axaloniz wo?

The statement "There are no absolute truths" cannot be true, because the statement itself claims to be absolute. However, one could make the argument that the only absolute truth is that there are no other absolute truths. :) Make sense?

The statement "There are no absolute truths" cannot be true, because the statement itself claims to be absolute. However, one could make the argument that the only absolute truth is that there are no other absolute truths. :) Make sense?


Well neither the previous statement or yours can be backed up so I would have to say they are both incorrect ;)

You can’t prove that it’s not absolute, but you can’t deny it either. It’s all just based on opinion, perception, and experience.

All reality is, is perception of an individual.


At least, I think. ;)

Look, guys, this whole thing is rubbish. To consider that 'there are no absolute truths' is simply giving credence to ones own insecurities... let me expand.

It's an absolute truth that 1+1=2. I don't care what your beliefs are, 1+1=2. It's another absolute truth that if I let go of a rock on the planet Earth's face, it will fall towards the ground. THAT is an absolute truth. It's absolutely true that if you are decapitated, you will die. The more you think about it, the more absolute truths you come up with.

What the thread is really asking is "Are there any choices I can make which will have a guaranteed outcome". Or, to put it more plainly "Is there anything in this life I can truly trust?" Or, to take it to the most base level, "Can I ensure that I'll be happy?"

Answer - No. Sorry, it may sound harsh, but NO.

To quote The Princess Bride, "Life IS pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something."

Get used to it.

Just for sake of argument, why can't love be absolute? Whether it is a lifetime commitment to another, or something of a fading memory, it can still remain pure in itself. There is nothing saying that for love to be absolute, it needs to remail the same, never changing it's course. Love can exist on it's own, and does not need reasoning.

To me, our reality is absolute. It may not be the same from one person to the next, but that does not change what is really there. The only thing that changes about an absolute, is our interpretation of it. You can dress it up as fancy as you desire, but you cannot change or alter what actually is.

To me not everything is an absolute, but the things that matter usually are.

In my opinion, Descartes had it all wrong. The way the quote should read is "I am, therefore, I think." Existance is a prerequisite to conciousness and also to thought.

Right. And Descartes agreed with you. He wasn't saying "I think. Because I think, I exist." He was saying, "I think. And things that don't exist can't think. So I must exist." He was, essentially, saying the exact same thing you're saying now.

It's an absolute truth that 1+1=2. I don't care what your beliefs are, 1+1=2.

Only because we have defined it in that way. It's highly semantical. It's like argueing over whether or not a word has an absolute definition, albeit in a more simplified form. 1+1=2 is a concept/idea, not a truth. It is how we describe something within our perception of reality.

Only because we have defined it in that way. It's highly semantical. It's like argueing over whether or not a word has an absolute definition, albeit in a more simplified form. 1+1=2 is a concept/idea, not a truth. It is how we describe something within our perception of reality.
No, it isn't.

Here's how this is going to work... I'm going to present you with each stage of this problem, and you're going to give a straight answer.

Nomatter how this ends up... remember, you started it.

Easy step #1... What is 1?

I apologise to the rest of you sentient beings... but some people really need it spelled out to them...

No, it isn't.

Here's how this is going to work... I'm going to present you with each stage of this problem, and you're going to give a straight answer.

Nomatter how this ends up... remember, you started it.

Easy step #1... What is 1?

I apologise to the rest of you sentient beings... but some people really need it spelled out to them...


What about when you have 1 apple, and 1 orange? You still have 2 objects, but according to the rules of algebra you can't add them together, unless you have a blender. :p just bieng smrat....

No, it isn't.

Here's how this is going to work... I'm going to present you with each stage of this problem, and you're going to give a straight answer.

Nomatter how this ends up... remember, you started it.

Easy step #1... What is 1?

I apologise to the rest of you sentient beings... but some people really need it spelled out to them...

Sorry mate, I was just being a pain in the ass. I was stuck on the trail in the mountains with a few people for 2 weeks. I kept debating with one guy and no matter how hard I tried, all of his arguments in the end devolved into semantics because he couldn't think of any other way to actually rebutt my arguments. Oh well. :p

Anyway, step #1. Just because we choose to attach an idea to a symbol does not make it a truth. It is only a truth because we define it as a truth. What is truth? Is the definition of truth a truth? (Imagine being forced to argue with a bugger who's entire method of argueing revolved around introducing semantics. I was going crazy.)

What about when you have 1 apple, and 1 orange? You still have 2 objects, but according to the rules of algebra you can't add them together, unless you have a blender. :p just bieng smrat....
According to the rules of algebra, you can add them together so long as you classify them as "Fruit" or "Objects" instead of Apple and an Orange.

You can also add them together leaving them separate, i.e., "I now have one apple and one orange."

This does not change that 1 + 1 = 2.

All reality is, is perception of an individual.


At least, I think. ;)No. Our perceptions are simply the portions of reality that we are able to sense. While we can't see infared light, we know it's there due to instruments that CAN detect and translate it into something we can percieve. If there was no reality, our senses would sense nothing. I think what you are trying to say is that we cannot truely KNOW a person; but only our PERCEPTION of that person since we cannot know their thoughts, feelings, etc. This is also true of ourselves. We only know ourselves from what we sense; from the tasks our brain can perform. In essence, we don't truely know reality; only our limited perception of it. However, there IS a one, universal, absolute reality.

No. Our perceptions are simply the portions of reality that we are able to sense. While we can't see infared light, we know it's there due to instruments that CAN detect and translate it into something we can percieve. If there was no reality, our senses would sense nothing. I think what you are trying to say is that we cannot truely KNOW a person; but only our PERCEPTION of that person since we cannot know their thoughts, feelings, etc. This is also true of ourselves. We only know ourselves from what we sense; from the tasks our brain can perform. In essence, we don't truely know reality; only our limited perception of it. However, there IS a one, universal, absolute reality.
You took that totally opposite of what I was meaning.

I didn't mean perception of another individual.

I meant each individual has their own perception of reality.

Anyway, step #1. Just because we choose to attach an idea to a symbol does not make it a truth. It is only a truth because we define it as a truth. What is truth? Is the definition of truth a truth?
That's a good question. I would define a truth as a circumstance or event that retains its own character regardless of how it is perceived and remains unaffected by belief.

For example, If I drop a rock in the street, it will fall towards the Earth. Some might say that's Gravity, some might say it's magic, some might say it's the work of a Deity... but those are merely observations. The only truth in that circumstance is that the rock will fall... nothing anyone says or believes will alter that fact. It's therefore a truth.

Everything else about that event is conjecture.

Does that make sense?

the first has been a reocuring thing in one of my classes namely what is love and is it in fact a real thing, the second is a recent thing in more depth on it it means can any thing in this world be defined as an absolute thing that will stand the test of time and cannot be proven wrong in any way what so ever.

Your thoughts on it all

First off..I'll be honest..I haven't read everyone's replies..just some. So, if I repeat something someone else has said..sorry.

Personally, I don't think love is something that can be define. Sure, many people have tried and many definitions exist..and I agree with many of them. That's why I don't think you can define love. Love goes beyond all the words we have in this world..it's a feeling..it's an emotion..it's a connection. I do believe love is a real thing.

For you second part..no I donn't think anything in this world is absolute. There is nothing we can prove..we live in a world..full of facts..but why are they facts..because someone came up with it. I'm not some weirdo..but we have no idea how this planet started...or if there are other life forms somewhere...we don't know how far space stretches out. 1+1=2..because someone made that up. Everyone says I'm 5 feet tall..but someone made that up. So..no I don't think there is anything you can prove..nothing is absolute..other than there is more unknown than known.

So..no I don't think there is anything you can prove..nothing is absolute..other than there is more unknown than known. I'm sorry, I just couldn't help it...
The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

—The Poetry of D.H. Rumsfeld (http://slate.msn.com/id/2081042), Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing

I meant each individual has their own perception of reality.Ah, ok then. Of course they do. Everyone views the world in which we live through "colored glasses." However, our perceptions cannot possibly encompass everything that exists because we are limited to our senses and our brain's interpretation of them. I am saying that while we all DO have different perceptions of reality, that which we percieve are only parts of the true reality; the reality that exists outside of us and would continue to exist even if we did not.

Ah, ok then. Of course they do. Everyone views the world in which we live through "colored glasses." However, our perceptions cannot possibly encompass everything that exists because we are limited to our senses and our brain's interpretation of them. I am saying that while we all DO have different perceptions of reality, that which we percieve are only parts of the true reality; the reality that exists outside of us and would continue to exist even if we did not.
However, since everyone has a different perspective of reality, wouldn't it be impossible to know what the "true reality" is?

However, since everyone has a different perspective of reality, wouldn't it be impossible to know what the "true reality" is? In its entirety, yes .

This is why I consider that anything is possible, and at the same time I'm too skeptical for my own damn good.