There is a blinding paradox inherent in the relative/absolute dichotomy. I do not believe everything is absolute. Nor do I believe everything is relative. I think most people would agree with me thus far.
However, the implication of both statements being true is problematic. If things are neither entirely absolute nor entirely relative, then it must be the case that some things are absolute and some things are relative.
But this just begs the question of what things must necessarily be absolute and what things must necessarily be relative? Well, it can only depend on whom you ask which ultimately renders everything relative. But one of my initial assumptions contradicts this conclusion!
Furthermore, upon closer inspection of this circular nonsense, an obfuscatory corollary crops up. If everything is relative, then it would seem everything can simultaneously be absolute. Why must this be so? Well, if something is relative, could it not be represented by any value, even an absolute one? This paradox puzzles me.
Is the set of all sets that are not members of itself a member of itself, or is it not, and if it is not, is it? It seems absolutism and relativity must be either both true or both false. Or perhaps they are both true and both false? But those statements are nonsensical at best or at least appear so. HUH?
However, the implication of both statements being true is problematic. If things are neither entirely absolute nor entirely relative, then it must be the case that some things are absolute and some things are relative.
But this just begs the question of what things must necessarily be absolute and what things must necessarily be relative? Well, it can only depend on whom you ask which ultimately renders everything relative. But one of my initial assumptions contradicts this conclusion!
Furthermore, upon closer inspection of this circular nonsense, an obfuscatory corollary crops up. If everything is relative, then it would seem everything can simultaneously be absolute. Why must this be so? Well, if something is relative, could it not be represented by any value, even an absolute one? This paradox puzzles me.
Is the set of all sets that are not members of itself a member of itself, or is it not, and if it is not, is it? It seems absolutism and relativity must be either both true or both false. Or perhaps they are both true and both false? But those statements are nonsensical at best or at least appear so. HUH?
No comments:
Post a Comment