fail again Well my word ... the field trip could be me and not had much encouragement to get writing lol. I will try to compensate for the brief reflection today I announced in my last post. No more waiting I offer my opinion on:
If everything is relative, then what we do with the phrase?
It is from there since where labor: to heed the statement "everything is relative" would have to assume that this fact is always true, that assertion must be true at any time, place, context ... that is, to accept that everything is relative must accept that the phrase "everything is relative" is absolute. I believe that a theory which is based on a totally opposite of what it defends gaps everywhere. Similarly, as I said when I swallow this hoax, we could use another sentence: "The exception proves the rule." But if we use this lifeline of new contradictions arise, mainly two:
"On the one hand, would not only accept that the sentence "Everything is relative" is absolute, but should also be made the same observation with "the exception proves the rule" ... that is, to accept that everything is relative, negotiable so we accept that there are at least two absolute . For me this is already treading water.
-* On the other hand, the original phrase comes from a medieval legal principle that says " probat regulam in casibus exceptio non exceptis" or confirmat regulam in casibus exceptio non exceptis "which comes to mean" exception proves the rule in cases not excepted "/ * is, that what we call exception to the rule, is but a new fact which in turn has its own rule: for example, if we say that all dogs are born with four legs and, suddenly, a breed of dog comes with three, we can not in our theory obcercarnos all four feet for all dogs, but will need to find a reason to the new reality of the three legs and give an explanation, theory or modifying the original theory or making a new theory exclusively for dogs and beasts ultimately even dismiss the leading theory. Therefore it would be better to rethink and / or at least correct the theory that everything is relative.
Finally and I think that is the explanation more likely at least I've discovered is that when we call "relative" to something, we really mean "subjective" facts, entities and things are what they are for themselves, regardless of the different perspectives we have on them ... that is, if we take a seat and four people see it from each of the cardinal points there, without any possibility of moving from his place, everyone will have a different and subjective personal-chair, but this will remain a chair, even if a fifth person came and swore that it is a goat. Therefore, not that it is on that piece of furniture is a chair, but what happens is that there are five different views of a single concrete idea and not abstract in this case not being any of them nor entirely successful, nor completely wrong, which does not mean it's worth it all: the subject is convinced that the object is a goat if he's completely wrong ... but a priori because despite being something superficially absurd we have to hear his opinion on the matter to know because it says that the seat is actually an animal, before making snap judgments about certain ideas, we should know both the explanations and the context of those who develop, because they often learn more from a mistake reasoned a inexplicable success.
is, although the facts and therefore are absolute truth, we could never believe that we have it in its entirety, since we are smaller than her and like drops of water form the sea, the subjective ideas of the people are used to discover the objective and absolute truth.
But beware, there is the "objectivity as the sum of subjectivities" which is as dangerous as by relativism, which put the five subject totally agree in choosing a single viewpoint and that for whatever reason have chosen the seat is a tomato, does not mean it is a certainty ... as has been watching over the story, mutual agreement and most do not always contain the truth and absolute right (remember the Nazis, very clear case of the twentieth century, as was a political ideology which voted most of the German people and which was followed by several supporters of this country and its president at the time as Italy or Spain). Similarly, and sorry that I repeat, one can not reject a view to be wrong, they all hold great or small, as the case-some truth in the reluctance of national socialism find the "kernel of truth "in that it must protect and defend certain aspects of national and patriotic tradition of the states ... obvious that the mistake was that both he sought to carry out this maxim as the desire to safeguard all aspects of patriotism, even those who were obsolete and rotten.
And likewise, to know that there are absolute truths and principles does not mean that we are in his possession, before a guided by values, ideals, and beliefs, although we are fully convinced of them, which is something extremely positive do not ever stop listening, observing and studying the values, ideals and beliefs of the other for the best way to know whether we are on track to absolute truth is to constantly test the strength of our certainties and convictions.
A hug.
*
http://cnho.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/la-excepcion-no-confirma-la-regla/ 
0 comments:
Post a Comment