Relativism

So, people on Veeky Forums understand that relitavism is a deceptive catch 22 philosophy and there's objective truth, right?

>relitavism

Delete your account

Why not egoism?

The argument against relativism that you're referring to is an exercise in semantics.

If you say "There is no absolute truth" and you counter with "But isn't that statement an absolute truth?" you can simply amend your position of relativism to

"There is no absolute truth, other then the fact that there is no absolute truth"

Note that I am not a relativist, but your argument's dumb and your shits all retarded, so I still feel obligated to rebuke you.

>objective truth exists im adiest btw :DDDDDDDD
Demanding logical consistency is something most people fail to understand is a presumption of absolute truth.

>there is no absolute truth, only there is
doesnt work, user. it either is, or isnt

fucking this

You directly contradicted yourself in two short sentences.

>There is no X, other then Y

Is a perfectly rational argument.

>There is no truth, other than the truth.
Works perfectly well.

If one states there is no absolute truth, then they are also denying logical consistency.

You people are kind of stupid so you fail to understand that logic can be doubted.

You can read like 10 pages of Nietzsche and see how this position is expressed. Do your fucking research at least.

>objective truth

I mean, systematically, that is one way to propose a statement. But, X and Y and their relation can be false. Especially when we're talking about truth (which is what makes an argument rational) itself

>will-to-truth

sure, I guess you COULD deny logic. Go ahead and deny reality like Decartes while your at it (different topic, ik, but still relevant).

My point is, you have to have a REASON to come to the conclusion that there is no truth. Still a catch 22.

explain. are you implying truth is power?

No we couldn't, go read Nietzsche you fucking idiot.
Holy shit are you fucking 5 m8

It's the opposite, power is truth.

i was being hypothetical and thinking while i wrote. i just realized i misread your posts. We both agree, you cant deny logic. and ill go and read Nietzsche, I've only had a basic introduction to his ideas and that was a while ago. any one work of his i should start with?

and wasn't hitler a big Nietzsche fan?

No, you can deny logic. Stop being stupid.

No, you're saying "there is no X, aside from this subset of X"
It don't work

>"No we couldn't, go read Nietzsche you fucking idiot"
and i had just said "i suppose we COULD deny logic," but it wouldn't be very logical.

we can't deny logic unless we deny order as a whole

and you're saying read Nietzsche, but you fail to communicate his ideas that relate to this discussion. what did he say about truth? and what should i read by him?

waaah you cant deny order

Why are you speaking on the subject if you don't know jack all about Nietzsche?

i mean, you can question order. im not saying dont be skeptical. Skepticism is based on the assumption that there is an answer. just come to a truthful conclusion, otherwise why believe anything? If there is no reason there are no answers.

Also, why is there something rather than nothing? why is do things "work" in general (i think its because of order)? you dont have to know Nietzsche to ask these questions.

>there's truth because i said so
You're really stupid. Stop posting or I'll start bullying you.

fuck that, its not because i "said so". truth is when things line up with reality. I guess im presupposing that we're not in a matrix or some shit, and that there are things outside my thoughts. i guess you might not believe that.

how am i stupid? you're not even answering my questions. why believe anything if there is no truth?

>reality
top kek

there we go, you're a cartesian. Cool. I think things exist, thank you very much :)

there isnt much i can do to alleviate your radical skepticism

I'm not a cartesian, stop talking about things you don't understand.

How does one fail to understand a basic bitch like Descartes? Do you have autism?

that whole "I think therefore, I am" discourse is just skepticism. it's a logical skepticism, but i dont really have a reason to deny my physical existence. what do you mean by "understand"? i thought you didnt believe in truth

and what am i not getting? is it that we dont agree on something? this all started with a simple question: is relativism invalid?
whats your answer? besides "read Nietzsche".

also, wasnt Hitler the perfect "ubermensch"? so was genocide justified?

No it's not, stop talking about things you don't understand you fucking idiot.
>also, wasnt Hitler the perfect "ubermensch"? so was genocide justified?
Holy fucking shit are you fucking baiting me here?

what do i not understand? ill admit, I dont understand Nietzsche's ideas, but i understand the concept behind decartes' basic philosophy.

See, people like you do this thing when they dont want to answer questions: they insult and whine about how dumb the person is, instead of providing a counter-argument.

if im so stupid, show me why

You don't understand either because you're fucking retarded. If you actually read the sources instead of basing everything off of fucking Wikipedia you'd know this.

Why would I argue? You don't understand the point I am making holy shit kid

your right, i suppose. im essentially just playing with ideas i learned in a basics course on this board. I guess need to read more, but why do you think there is something rather than nothing? and rephrase the point youre making so that i can understand

>it's a logical skepticism,
no. descartes is sure that logic is what matters

Why does it fucking matter?

i want to know

which one, my question or your point? regardless, they both do