Relativists BTFO

fuck your veritas and roman universalism

kids like you get F's

What is a single object?

To define a single object you must make categories. Categories are products of language. Language is ambiguous.

>F's

the medium it was defined in, logic, is not ambiguous. Rather, your post supporting some eternal grey-area of reality, is.

>For you
>F

Dude, if you want to talk about maths, do it properly. In advanced maths, 1+1 could be anything. It's all about the system in wich you work. This is either an obvious test or you're retarded (both probably)

>t. read a Veeky Forums argument about mathmatical tautalogies
you're wrong because you're misquoting everyone in this thread. The quote was 1+1=2. Which is clear-cut as to its definition and form. You on the other hand have retreated to a lack of proofs and instead start spluttering on about your ideology. So, please, post your proofs that you're right instead of some philistine's paraphrasing of an ananoymous Veeky Forums poster.

>the medium it was defined in, logic, is not ambiguous

You don't understand, friend. Logic isn't ambiguous. Most pomoist relativists do no declare that the system of logic is relative. They would simply say that the problem arises when you apply logic to the real world.

Singling something out as "1 object" means you have categorized that object as being a whole thing. In reality everything is divisible into as many parts as you want, save the smallest particles. Everything is would simply be a subjective categorization, from a certain (pomo) point of view.

Nah man, one of my best friends is a maths major and I've had many discussions with the head of analytical philosophy department (who was the one who told me this).

brilliant.org/discussions/thread/proof-that-1-1-and-1-3/

>Logic isn't ambiguous

Actually, logic often is very much ambiguous.

imaginary numbers aren't real and can't be used for anything beyond theory. Hence they're not used to actually understand the simple platonic statement you 1+1=2. You've been jewed. You hack. Give up. You have no education in this matter, get him to show up if you wan't to defend his ideas. You wet cum-rag of a human.

>Logic isn't ambiguous

What? Have you ever studied logic? And I mean philosophy logic, not what is commonly called "logic".

C'mon, you're not even trying

name when a literal skill to understand the world gives you an ambiguous answer or understanding you piss-sponge.

>Everything is would simply be a subjective categorization, from a certain (pomo) point of view.
your ideology would be wrong then. Just like the nazis who categorized the jews and catholics as undesirables.

>imaginary numbers aren't real and can't be used for anything beyond theory

Oh my god the ignorance

name when they can be used you philistine. When you prove that a -1 is equal to 1? you're a joke

It doesn't matter how complex the object is, as long as it doesn't immediately dissapear it can be counted alongside other objects. You just have to define basic threedimensional outlines of things.

By the way, do you have any understanding of the implication of such a teaching? People would starve in the streets instead of eat food and execute their jailers if it were used in court. It's disgusting.

"Imaginary numbers are mainly used in mathematical modeling. They can affect values in models where the state of a model at a particular moment in time is affected by the state of a model at an earlier time. You’re most likely to use imaginary numbers in fields like quantum mechanics and engineering where differential equations are used (differential equations are part of calculus). For example, they can be used to monitor the phase and amplitude of an audio signal or electrical currents. You’ll also come across these numbers in computer science, where some programming languages (like C#) use imaginary numbers in their routines. Imaginary numbers are very rarely used in statistics; you’ll come across them in advanced topics like Fourier Analysis."

statisticshowto.com/imaginary-numbers/#Reali

I'm not even a posmodernist. That the way to discover something is very complex is not a justification of its falseness. We are way beyond Plato.

>What? Have you ever studied logic? And I mean philosophy logic, not what is commonly called "logic".

Yes. Yes I have studied it. It's not what I meant by "logic". I was trying to refer (poorly) to logic only in colloquial sense.

Its irrelevant to pomoists if mathematics as a skill gives an ambiguous answer. To they, it still doesn't mean that the answer correlates with an objective reality, it would only make sense as a predictive measure for its own closed system (the system of mathematics).

If 1+1 was an universal truth no one here would be saying it isnt

1+1 = 2 *

You are a pissrag who doens't understand what hes writing if you have to quote random faggots off of the internet. This is why so many westerners are poor, because idiots like you beileve everything they're told when they have no use because I do all of those things and I don't use your faggoty ass imagniary numbers that are there purely for theory.

>your ideology would be wrong then. Just like the nazis who categorized the jews and catholics as undesirables.

What the fuck are you on about? Nazis are completely irrelevant.

But that definition is not objective. It can't be easily transferred to others on a 1-1 basis. Every understanding of it will be slightly different, and 1+1 then only works as a closed mathematical system.

your purpoting that all ideologies are correct. Well, the nazis had one and they were wrong. So there are incorrect ideologies. Let us not forget, that post-modernism is cut from a literal nazi, heidegger.

I just wanted to explain myself as good as posible by quoting something and not pretending I'm making this up. The explanation is there, if you want to keep denying it, that's your choice man. Just know that not even stemfags will agree with you.

This world is very complex.

get a life! get a wife!!

>the cultural objectivity goes SKRRRRAAA
>BA BA BA KA KA

>stemfags
literal slaves and jokes. some of the lowest of the educated classes.
>deny
eat shit its teh truth you uneducated philistine. Enjoy suffering unto death for your idiocy.

>You are a pissrag who doens't understand what hes writing if you have to quote random faggots off of the internet.

Because the majority's consensus on contentious issues has always been a reliable gauge to truth

and criminals plead not guilty. your ideology is wrong. Literally born of heidegger, the nazi.

>your purpoting that all ideologies are correct. Well, the nazis had one and they were wrong. So there are incorrect ideologies

I didn't purport anything of the sort. I am talking about pomo metaphysics more or less. But nazi's didn't think they were wrong anyway. I think they were wrong, but how can there be an incorrect ideology? Who is the arbiter of this? Surely it is only the individual.

>he thinks any numbers are actually real

...

do we really need an objective definition of what consitutes a separate object? if what were discussing is the relativistic view that truth changes in different societies then you really have no legs to stand on with that level of nitpickiness.

Exactly, thanks for proving my point
?

>I am talking about pomo metaphysics more or less
No, you are arguing tautologies, which are an ideology. Stop side stepping and make your case for why you can say that things can be rearranged as people wish and re imagined as people wish. Im waiting.

>jews and catholics being undesirables
>wrong

Pick one

People lie. Just like the two-fced bitches who claim that everything is realtive. Then they get killed for being so stupid, imagine if one of you idiots made a brdige. I bet you'd fall to your death if you were on it on a windy day.

>do we really need an objective definition of what consitutes a separate object
No.

>if what were discussing is the relativistic view that truth changes in different societies then you really have no legs to stand on with that level of nitpickiness.

But if there is ambiguity at the most nitpicky level, then that ambiguity is still the basis of everything else. Isn't it? I dunno. So technically, from a pomo perspective, everything goes ambiguously back to language, so any notion of truth is shaky, because it is indeterminable and always open for debate level?
For practical purposes it makes no difference.
I'm no a pomoist btw. I'm just arguing from what I understand to be their point of view.

you failing classes and getting bad marks is your argument for things being faulty in their explanations? This is hilarious, the skill is there, you just couldn't hack it and didn't achieve the proper understanding. You all sound like peasants wondering if the sky will fall.

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/
There isn't even a "posmodernism" doctrina.

>a tautology is not a truth
drooling_brainless_wojak.jpg

>No, you are arguing tautologies, which are an ideology.
No I'm not. I'm not even a postmodernist, I'm just arguing from what I understand to be their perspective.

>make your case for why you can say that things can be rearranged as people wish and re imagined as people wish
Why would I do that? That literally has nothing to do with anything I've been saying. That isn't even strictly relativism. You've foisted me upon a strawman, my friend.

1+1 is simply part of the mathematical language used to describe and predict the world. But those numbers have to relate to objects to be meaningful. Any attempt to link those objects to any particular other objects will be a categorization of language, translated to another language (mathematics). They do not directly relate. But any attempt to define a single or multiple objects, again, relies upon designating anything that exists as a particular sign. Of course, any designation of a sign is subjective. Objects are only known through language. So even mathematics is shaky, from a certain kind of view, and it only works in relation to itself and our linguistic frame of reference as we understand the world.

The whole conversation is embarrassing. You don't know what maths are and also don't know what posmodernism means. You're probably 16.

you are retarded
When someone is tells a lie they are protecting themselves, their own "truth", for whatever reason it is they have, regardless of your moral autistic screeching
If I wanted to build a bridge I would use math because it works. This doesn't mean a bunch of abstractions that work on the same rules that you idiots claim they "prove" are an universal truth.
Go back fapping to your Bill Nye poster

yeah okay, lets see you build a bridge and pay for it, like I have.

you can't build a bridge with maths you idiot you need physics.
>they're proteting themselves
they actually get a harsher sentence

Don't know why you two are being so darn mean to me.

I might be retarded (and I am), but you're both moreso, by the way.

stop being so condesending and authoritative then. you keep going
>in a certain magical land where im always right

I thought you were the "building bridges with 1+1" guy, sorry.

You need math to use physics in the first place, you dense autist
And they only get locked up if their lie doesnt work. Thats a pretty good example of another bunch of abstractions failing when trying to make them work in real life with all it's caos

>lie your way out of a guilty sentence
literally doesn't happen. God sees all and punishes people for their sins.
>you need maths to use physics
don't forget engineering and geology you HACK. come on, build a bridge for me and tell me its all relative, show me your not some dumbshit defending his sack of shit of an ideology.

>this whole thread
The first reply is all the refutation one would need to this bait.
t. mathematician

>this nuclear brainlet meltdown

If you haven't read any classics you'd realize that God uses designations to teach people these concepts. Hence they are beyond the scope of humans creating improper forms.

>hes still responding
a shame you ran out of braincells

>everyone who replies to me is the same person
>still assblasted he got BTFO by a wiki quote

>God uses designations
I don't think so, friend.

>literally 10+ quotes of this exact format
must be something in the water

redefine truth

Let's say that you have found the Universal, objective truth and reality. How is it different for those who are wrong? Where do they draw their conclusions from, if not the Universal/objective reality? If they do take input from other sources, what are they? If their input is the same as yours, how do you rank them? What hierarchy do you tie them [claims] into, to make your claim superior?

N.

God is smarter than them and made it all up. Cosmic-funding. inspiration. by what year they were made. Court cases

Derrida (something something something concept of time concept of truth something)

The fact that we have different ideologies proves there is no objective truth. You and I interpret the importance of a bridge when talking as something as complex as truth in a different way. If for you the existence of a bridge is more relevant than the complexity of human perspective towards material and non-material problems you should probably go back to watching Bill Nye. You belong in the right side of this pic. What we are discussing is not even relativism, which is a more complex problem, beyond your positivist autism.

Also, god doesn't exist.
t. logic

>we disagree
wow you must be the wise-man that taught us how to nuke japanese peasants! Eat shit im right and saying everything is relative is like lighting your plan on fire and throwing your parachute out the window. Might as well shoot yourself to save the pain of free-fall.

>beep boop i'm a gate
>beep boop lemme take those two ones you have boy
>beep
>boop
>result is a zero sucka

>t. KArl Marx
enjoy the gulag, well find a spot for you

There is literally no reason to me to do anything of that. Truth being relative doesnt mean there is not a context. If I do any of that it will hurt me and the people that I care for, so I will not do it. See? No need to get so buttblasted, we can still be friends :)

>marx invented logic
Bravo

Probably the worst thing about postmodernism is that it doesn't have tools to discriminate between good and bad. It's also it's best feature but when you think about how bullshit most of conceptual art is you want to hang yourself. Btw at this point we should start discussing about metamodernism / post postmodernism or something

Its your fault you consume and expose yourself to shitty art. Stop blaming others for your own shortcomings.

1+1=2 is dependent on a base ten numerical system. Change the frame and the answer changes, literally relativism.

KYS

>i dont know what logic is
dont worry comrade. Education is free in siberia

This.

Thread should had ended with first post

and how are those different bases proof of relativity? using a different medium doesn't prove relativity. Rather, you're just putting words in people's mouths who are already using the base ten system.

but it's the same answer. that's like saying two things are different if you say them in different languages

>Truth being relative doesnt mean there is not a context
show me your proofs

This conversation

there should be a red sharpie writing an "F" if thats your proof for relativity

I thought you meant context

The question is stupid in formal systems anyway because then truth is just a tautology and wham, the problem solved, truth is entirely dependant on the system wherein it exists

If we map it onto the world or being or whatever you philosophers call it then it gets tricky because obviously the statement '1+1=2 is true in cases where reality is coherent to the formal system where 1+1=2' is stupid and useless, and knowing exactly that reality is a function of some formal systems is impossible because to map you kinda need to know all the elements on the both sides or at least a way to, eh, list them, and who the fuck knows if in the future there will be only binary robots instead of humans or just non-fuzzy atomized elements that can be labeled as 1, of course we can say 'heh the formal system that describes that shit probably exists so let's use it when applicable' but that's just a smugier version of the statement above

So tautological truth is clearly absolute for each system but depends on the system, but nobody is intrested in that shit, implication is does non-tautological truth exist and if it does is it absolute?

(the amount corresponding to one) + (the amount corresponding to one) = (the amount corresponding to two)
This board should be deleted

The eternal autist will never understand. Just let it go, they will find their place building bridges during the day and masturbating to anime during the night.

The infinite sum of all natural numbers is negative one twelfth plus infinity.