I haven't written much recently, and perhaps that's not necessarily a bad thing. In some respects I suppose I'm my own harshest critic and therefore my own worst censor. On the other hand a lot of random junk doesn't get thrown up here because of it, and perhaps it's better that way, the Internet already has enough of that already. Then again, this could possibly be construed as random junk. Anyways, I think I probably already wrote about this somewhere, I have the recollection of doing so, but I want to revisit this simply because it's something that I feel like God has been pounding into me again and again.
Over the past 20-some years of my life I've had 4 major relocations. That's not a lot by any stretch of the imagination, I know people that have jumped from country to country throughout their childhood, however, it's enough. My most recent and shortest relocation being moving approximately 850 miles south from Seattle to the Silicon Valley. The furthest relocation being a 7600 mile move from cozy old Niskayuna, NY to Hsin-Chu, Taiwan for two-and-a-half years, and then an about face and back. In the middle is a 2800 mile move from Niskayuna to Seattle for college. Within the course of the past 4 years or so I've had to move a good 9-10 times within the local area, so I'm pretty familiar with the whole moving process and all that. So what's this have to do with anything?
I think the major thing that I've learned from the frequent movement is that I really can't take anything for granted. Furthermore, I can't afford to be idle, lest time pass me by and take away whatever opportunity that I may have had for growth and development of relationships. God put me in each and every situation for a reason, and for that reason I'm there. It's no good to sit and ponder if I should be somewhere else, and even if I plan to be somewhere else, I'm here now. I don't know if I'm being clear, but the lesson is this, make the most of what you have now. I may not plan on being where I am a year, maybe two years from now, I may more may not see my plan through for various reasons. However, any time I hold back because I don't plan on being here, I'm losing out. Any time I spend worrying about what may be is a moment lost in the here and now. If I say, "I'm not going to commit to anything because it's only short-term" then in essence I idle away whatever time that "short-term" period denotes. If that's not a waste of time I don't know what is. I am where I am, I need to make the most of what's in front of me.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
A Thought on "Personality" Tests
By "personality" test I'm generally referring to something along the lines of Myers-Brigg assessment or the Carl Jung test or something along those lines. Those four random letters that people seem to spout that supposedly tells you everything about them. Are you ISFJ? ENTP? INFP? ESTJ? BXYQ? ASDF? It seems kind of ridiculous after a while, yet a lot of people get really into it and some people make a pretty big deal out of it. I've taken a number of them before, I've been everything from ISFJ to INTP, though most consistently I'm something of an INTP, and I suppose it fairly accurately describes me, but a lot of it seems to something of posturing as well. Honestly, I don't really see how any of this really counts for a whole lot. Certainly it's a form of behavioral sciences to an extent, but simply put it's trying to define us by what we do. I must be an "I" because I am more frequently alone than with other people. I must be an "E" because I enjoy being at the center of attention at times. Sure I think it has its merits, it allows us to understand tendencies and the patterns in which people behave to better help us interact with one another, but honestly, do we really need it?
At what point does it vary from "oh, that's just his/her personality" to being some kind of cop out for a means of behavior? I feel like a lot of times we live in a society where if we can explain something that makes it okay, regardless of the consequences. We live in a society of justification, if you can spout off enough reasons that smatters of legitimacy, if you can convince enough people that your case was something of an exception, or that you were in an extenuating circumstance then anything is permissable then you are always right. If you want it put shortly, we live a society of lawyers. Not to say all lawyers are like that, however, there's that idea that if you can sell your case strongly enough then it's okay, if you can get away with it, it's not wrong. So how does this tie in with a Myers-Brigg assessment? I appear to have deviated onto a major tangent here. To bring it back to my original point, I believe that the more people fall into these "personality" categories the more they pigeon hole themselves into something that they are not. We're a society that likes to label without looking like we're labeling people.
From personal experience I have found that interaction with other people is largely something that is developed. Sure it comes more naturally to some than to others, however, I believe that each person is capable of change. Through the labels of INFJ, ISTP, ESFP, etc... then there creates a sort of boundary. In our attempts to explain ourselves we also devoid ourselves of any reason to change. I believe there is a difference between being accepting of someone for who they are as compared to being a doormat. In any social interaction there is a certain amount of etiquette to be observed, however what these labels successfully do is toss out that etiquette because that's "just who people are". Sure I can buy that, but that doesn't make it okay. For any good thought experiment to work, we need to take it to an extreme, say I'm belligerent by nature and just smack any random person I don't like the look of. That's just the way I am. Doesn't make it right. If that's who I am, and who I am is not right, then I need to change it.
Now before people start bashing me for bashing Myers-Briggs and Carl Jung let me speak in their defense. They are positive for the purposes of self-reflection. In understanding ourselves we can then make that move to improve the areas where we are weaker, to work on being more outgoing if we're introverted, on being more understanding of others feelings if we're more rational and calculating in thought. When it becomes something of, "this is who I am, take it or leave it" I think then that it's a useless label maker that doesn't really do anything except marginalize people.
At what point does it vary from "oh, that's just his/her personality" to being some kind of cop out for a means of behavior? I feel like a lot of times we live in a society where if we can explain something that makes it okay, regardless of the consequences. We live in a society of justification, if you can spout off enough reasons that smatters of legitimacy, if you can convince enough people that your case was something of an exception, or that you were in an extenuating circumstance then anything is permissable then you are always right. If you want it put shortly, we live a society of lawyers. Not to say all lawyers are like that, however, there's that idea that if you can sell your case strongly enough then it's okay, if you can get away with it, it's not wrong. So how does this tie in with a Myers-Brigg assessment? I appear to have deviated onto a major tangent here. To bring it back to my original point, I believe that the more people fall into these "personality" categories the more they pigeon hole themselves into something that they are not. We're a society that likes to label without looking like we're labeling people.
From personal experience I have found that interaction with other people is largely something that is developed. Sure it comes more naturally to some than to others, however, I believe that each person is capable of change. Through the labels of INFJ, ISTP, ESFP, etc... then there creates a sort of boundary. In our attempts to explain ourselves we also devoid ourselves of any reason to change. I believe there is a difference between being accepting of someone for who they are as compared to being a doormat. In any social interaction there is a certain amount of etiquette to be observed, however what these labels successfully do is toss out that etiquette because that's "just who people are". Sure I can buy that, but that doesn't make it okay. For any good thought experiment to work, we need to take it to an extreme, say I'm belligerent by nature and just smack any random person I don't like the look of. That's just the way I am. Doesn't make it right. If that's who I am, and who I am is not right, then I need to change it.
Now before people start bashing me for bashing Myers-Briggs and Carl Jung let me speak in their defense. They are positive for the purposes of self-reflection. In understanding ourselves we can then make that move to improve the areas where we are weaker, to work on being more outgoing if we're introverted, on being more understanding of others feelings if we're more rational and calculating in thought. When it becomes something of, "this is who I am, take it or leave it" I think then that it's a useless label maker that doesn't really do anything except marginalize people.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Current Reads: Updated
Serious Life Stuff:
Currently I have a short list of 3 books that I am reading through that I find to be both insightful and practical in the living of Christian life and the application of theology. They provide what I believe is the proper perspective on many issues in life, especially ones that I struggle with:
Good Life by Charles Colson
The Spirit of the Disciplines by Dallas Willard
The Cost of Discipleship by Deitrich Bonhoffer
Fantasy:
So I managed to slog through the rest of John Marco's The Jackal of Nar it wasn't as paralleled to Ms Saigon as it could've been, so that was kind of nice. Currently, I'm going through an older series, I haven't picked up many new books so I haven't been reading in as high of a volume as I normally do.
The Elfstones of Shannara by Terry Brooks
Currently I have a short list of 3 books that I am reading through that I find to be both insightful and practical in the living of Christian life and the application of theology. They provide what I believe is the proper perspective on many issues in life, especially ones that I struggle with:
Good Life by Charles Colson
The Spirit of the Disciplines by Dallas Willard
The Cost of Discipleship by Deitrich Bonhoffer
Fantasy:
So I managed to slog through the rest of John Marco's The Jackal of Nar it wasn't as paralleled to Ms Saigon as it could've been, so that was kind of nice. Currently, I'm going through an older series, I haven't picked up many new books so I haven't been reading in as high of a volume as I normally do.
The Elfstones of Shannara by Terry Brooks
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Nature of Introversion
I've always considered myself somewhat of an introvert. If the Myers-Brigg assessments can be trusted, I've been anywhere between 80%-100% introverted on all of the assessments save the most recent one, which, if the MyType application in Facebook is too be believed, then I am hardly an introvert, but somewhere on the border between introversion and extroversion, leaning ever so slightly towards the side of introversion. One of my greatest shortcomings is that I can be something of recluse, I easily, and readily, and often subconsciously alienate myself from other people and various social situations. I still do sometimes. It's something that I have been working on extensively for the better part of the last 5-6 years. However, I am still more inclined to believe I am a major introvert as opposed to the fact that I have changed drastically. Of course, then that comes to the question of what is the nature of introversion and extroversion, which I hope that some of my theorizing may illuminate the perspective by which I view things.
I believe that Myers-Brigg falls somewhat short in that it attempts to assess personality via simple behavioral patterns (I know I likely oversimplify it, but that is how I see it), and while generally an accurate measure, it has by my experience, not really captured the essence of who we really are. It's a quantitative approach at something that is better measured qualitatively. Not to say that Myers-Brigg is completely invalid, however, I believe that relying on it alone would be very poor judgment of any person's character. While introversion and extroversion are measured very much on a behavioral standpoint, I believe that there has been a large misconception of equating such with what I will simply call social competency. The general premise being that extroverts are naturally more socially adept than their introverted counterparts. To some extent this is true, but however, I believe that the nature of introversion and extroversion are not the proficiency with which one handles a social situation.
I speak more from experience than from any intensive study of the matter, but I know many people who have been somewhat surprised that I claim to be as introverted as I am, but I personally have no doubts regarding my own introversion. I am somewhat shy and reserved, but I have no qualms about speaking in public, about taking initiative, about being around people, about being the center of attention, I however, still consider myself extremely introverted. I believe introversion to be a matter of preference rather than ability. I think that social grace (at least to the extent of being around many people and carrying on a conversation) is like a language that can be learned, it comes more naturally to the extroverts than to introverts. That is not to say that introverts cannot be experts in the language, but they must work that much harder to express themselves thus. My primary language is English, I am very comfortable in almost any sort of exposition so long as it is in English, however, when you move the language to Chinese, a language I can speak fluently but am less proficient in, it becomes a greater chore and requires much greater effort for me to express myself with the same effectiveness as I would in English. Likewise (I can only speak for introversion as I am not an extrovert), an introverted person would require that much more effort to be a more "social" person. Not to say that he/she would not be able to carry himself/herself perfectly fine in a more "social" environment but that it would simply require more effort and would be more taxing (as I've found) both mentally and physically. Some of the most socially adept people I know are actually introverted. I just believe that many of them (introverts) do not actively practice this "language" and thus the correlation is created, whereas extroverts continually put themselves in said situation and are very much comfortable and at ease given the circumstances.
So is there an application to all of this? For one, the tried and true rule of not being able to judge anyone or anything simply on appearances. Additionally, I think for perhaps friends and family and loved ones understanding perhaps that though they appear to be handling themselves well in a social situation it may be more taxing than it appears. It's hard to be conscious about that, but now we know, and at the very least it's something. It requires a lot of energy for an introvert to be around people, especially for a long period of time. Not to say they don't get lonely and can live without company indefinitely, but understanding that they recharge by taking a break from people for a little bit. It's not that they don't like it, it's just that it requires more energy from them than it does of the extroverts. When an athlete stops to rest between games, it's not because he/she hates the sport, the athlete is just tired.
I believe that Myers-Brigg falls somewhat short in that it attempts to assess personality via simple behavioral patterns (I know I likely oversimplify it, but that is how I see it), and while generally an accurate measure, it has by my experience, not really captured the essence of who we really are. It's a quantitative approach at something that is better measured qualitatively. Not to say that Myers-Brigg is completely invalid, however, I believe that relying on it alone would be very poor judgment of any person's character. While introversion and extroversion are measured very much on a behavioral standpoint, I believe that there has been a large misconception of equating such with what I will simply call social competency. The general premise being that extroverts are naturally more socially adept than their introverted counterparts. To some extent this is true, but however, I believe that the nature of introversion and extroversion are not the proficiency with which one handles a social situation.
I speak more from experience than from any intensive study of the matter, but I know many people who have been somewhat surprised that I claim to be as introverted as I am, but I personally have no doubts regarding my own introversion. I am somewhat shy and reserved, but I have no qualms about speaking in public, about taking initiative, about being around people, about being the center of attention, I however, still consider myself extremely introverted. I believe introversion to be a matter of preference rather than ability. I think that social grace (at least to the extent of being around many people and carrying on a conversation) is like a language that can be learned, it comes more naturally to the extroverts than to introverts. That is not to say that introverts cannot be experts in the language, but they must work that much harder to express themselves thus. My primary language is English, I am very comfortable in almost any sort of exposition so long as it is in English, however, when you move the language to Chinese, a language I can speak fluently but am less proficient in, it becomes a greater chore and requires much greater effort for me to express myself with the same effectiveness as I would in English. Likewise (I can only speak for introversion as I am not an extrovert), an introverted person would require that much more effort to be a more "social" person. Not to say that he/she would not be able to carry himself/herself perfectly fine in a more "social" environment but that it would simply require more effort and would be more taxing (as I've found) both mentally and physically. Some of the most socially adept people I know are actually introverted. I just believe that many of them (introverts) do not actively practice this "language" and thus the correlation is created, whereas extroverts continually put themselves in said situation and are very much comfortable and at ease given the circumstances.
So is there an application to all of this? For one, the tried and true rule of not being able to judge anyone or anything simply on appearances. Additionally, I think for perhaps friends and family and loved ones understanding perhaps that though they appear to be handling themselves well in a social situation it may be more taxing than it appears. It's hard to be conscious about that, but now we know, and at the very least it's something. It requires a lot of energy for an introvert to be around people, especially for a long period of time. Not to say they don't get lonely and can live without company indefinitely, but understanding that they recharge by taking a break from people for a little bit. It's not that they don't like it, it's just that it requires more energy from them than it does of the extroverts. When an athlete stops to rest between games, it's not because he/she hates the sport, the athlete is just tired.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Current Reads
Well, I've been going through books fairly rapidly recently, and I thought, why not up and discuss what I like and dislike about them here, in the event anyone was looking for a good read. So here goes:
Recently Read:
The Name of the Wind
Patrick Rothfuss
So I finished this pretty recently, and I had read online that it was supposed to be like one of the best books ever. Apparently the internet and I have some differing opinions on what is considered excellence in the realm of fantasy writing. Rothfuss does create a very interesting world and all, however, I believe that there are better things to be had. The bulk of the novel entails a man recalling a life and something of a legacy that he left behind. I won't say more for risk of spoiling the story, it's an interesting story, however, it's not quite the thing that I really look for. The protagonist tends towards those that are incredibly lucky and/or overly capable to do anything and everything that is set before him. The narrative is good, it maintains a good flow, however, it's nothing that I would go out of my way for. Likely something I would finish in terms of the story and the other books in the forthcoming series, however, I wouldn't consider it a must have in your library.
The Obsidian Chronicles
Dragon Weather
Dragon Society
Dragon Venom
Lawrence Watt-Evans
I recently finished this sereis and have to say, that Watt-Evans is one of the more pleasant finds I've come across recently, his narrative and story development are interesting. The worlds that he builds, in this case, specifically the world known as the Lands of Man, are believable and he wanders with some intriguing ideas as to what a fantastical world should look like and operate. I thoroughly enjoyed this series, again, something of a quick read, not one to keep through the years in your collection.
Annals of the Chosen
The Wizard Lord
The Ninth Talisman
Lawrence Watt-Evans
I think this is the first series of Watt-Evans that I stumbled upon, or rather I stumbled upon The Wizard Lord specifically. It's an interesting concept and a fun story to read through, despite the one-dimensionality of almost all of the characters. There are more interesting ideas to be had here, Watt-Evans I believe is one of the more imaginative authors I've come across recently.
Currently Reading:
The Jackal of Nar
John Marco
The story seemed interesting enough through the first half of the novel. Now I'm slogging through the second half, and honestly, my assessment of the novel continues to drop. It's not a bad write, and I'm hoping that his other works are a little more original. To me it's like a 750 page written remake of the musical Ms. Saigon in a fantasy world, and it's losing me by the page.
Recently Read:
The Name of the Wind
Patrick Rothfuss
So I finished this pretty recently, and I had read online that it was supposed to be like one of the best books ever. Apparently the internet and I have some differing opinions on what is considered excellence in the realm of fantasy writing. Rothfuss does create a very interesting world and all, however, I believe that there are better things to be had. The bulk of the novel entails a man recalling a life and something of a legacy that he left behind. I won't say more for risk of spoiling the story, it's an interesting story, however, it's not quite the thing that I really look for. The protagonist tends towards those that are incredibly lucky and/or overly capable to do anything and everything that is set before him. The narrative is good, it maintains a good flow, however, it's nothing that I would go out of my way for. Likely something I would finish in terms of the story and the other books in the forthcoming series, however, I wouldn't consider it a must have in your library.
The Obsidian Chronicles
Dragon Weather
Dragon Society
Dragon Venom
Lawrence Watt-Evans
I recently finished this sereis and have to say, that Watt-Evans is one of the more pleasant finds I've come across recently, his narrative and story development are interesting. The worlds that he builds, in this case, specifically the world known as the Lands of Man, are believable and he wanders with some intriguing ideas as to what a fantastical world should look like and operate. I thoroughly enjoyed this series, again, something of a quick read, not one to keep through the years in your collection.
Annals of the Chosen
The Wizard Lord
The Ninth Talisman
Lawrence Watt-Evans
I think this is the first series of Watt-Evans that I stumbled upon, or rather I stumbled upon The Wizard Lord specifically. It's an interesting concept and a fun story to read through, despite the one-dimensionality of almost all of the characters. There are more interesting ideas to be had here, Watt-Evans I believe is one of the more imaginative authors I've come across recently.
Currently Reading:
The Jackal of Nar
John Marco
The story seemed interesting enough through the first half of the novel. Now I'm slogging through the second half, and honestly, my assessment of the novel continues to drop. It's not a bad write, and I'm hoping that his other works are a little more original. To me it's like a 750 page written remake of the musical Ms. Saigon in a fantasy world, and it's losing me by the page.
The Man: Who Really Makes the Rules?
I'm not sure why, but I've been pondering these things more and more, specifically the idea of who we answer to on a moral level. The idea of whether or not there is such a thing as morality and such, and where it comes from, how our ethics are determined, etc... I'm not really here to discuss the existence of morality and ethics and the like, however, I believe in order for us to really get anywhere with this sort of discourse, it is required that we take a slight line of tangency and first discuss the merits of morality, ethics, what they are, and how they affect us. So let us begin there.
Now there are several definitions of morality or morals that we can draw from, but for extensive purposes let us use the following:
"1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical"
Then what is ethics? Let's see, it is redundantly defined thus:
"the body of moral principles or values governing or distinctive of a particular culture or group"
I'm not sure of any official definition, but for all extensive purposes, we will assume that the definitions above provided by www.dictionary.com are indeed sufficient for our needs. If I may, I am going to truncate the definition to a fragment of what is above mentioned, that fragment being, "the distinction between right and wrong".
I like trying to appeal to one's intuition because intuition is a very strong thing, granted, our intuitions may fail us, but mostly we don't want our intuitions to be wrong. Now, I believe that the concept of right and wrong, good and bad, in essence, morality is a very intuitive thing. Sure we need laws and regulation to tell us the specifics, such as what punishments are merited if you do something wrong, and what specifically is wrong about what you do, however, the feeling of whether or not that is right or wrong is inherently there without the regulation or legal trappings.
Inherently we make a decision determining what is right and what is wrong, what is better and what is worse, in every crossroad we come across, it'll be that sort of decision, even if we can't explain it, and it's just some "hunch". What I ultimately want to come across is that there is a certain degree of universality that is inherent in morals of mankind. If there is no objective standard, there is no perfection, there is no good, there is no bad, there is no right, there is no wrong. Middle Eastern terrorists have every right to slam planes into civilian buildings in the claim of Islamic Jihad, and they're not wrong, because if morals are man made then no one has any more of a legitimate claim on what is right than anyone else, save that perhaps one is stronger than the other. We trust the opinion of a doctor because he has studied the body and understands how it functions, not because he made up how the body functions. Likewise, if a man is to be an expert on morals it cannot really be because he "made it up", otherwise, we're all experts and we're all perfect people.
Now there are several definitions of morality or morals that we can draw from, but for extensive purposes let us use the following:
"1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical"
Then what is ethics? Let's see, it is redundantly defined thus:
"the body of moral principles or values governing or distinctive of a particular culture or group"
I'm not sure of any official definition, but for all extensive purposes, we will assume that the definitions above provided by www.dictionary.com are indeed sufficient for our needs. If I may, I am going to truncate the definition to a fragment of what is above mentioned, that fragment being, "the distinction between right and wrong".
I like trying to appeal to one's intuition because intuition is a very strong thing, granted, our intuitions may fail us, but mostly we don't want our intuitions to be wrong. Now, I believe that the concept of right and wrong, good and bad, in essence, morality is a very intuitive thing. Sure we need laws and regulation to tell us the specifics, such as what punishments are merited if you do something wrong, and what specifically is wrong about what you do, however, the feeling of whether or not that is right or wrong is inherently there without the regulation or legal trappings.
Inherently we make a decision determining what is right and what is wrong, what is better and what is worse, in every crossroad we come across, it'll be that sort of decision, even if we can't explain it, and it's just some "hunch". What I ultimately want to come across is that there is a certain degree of universality that is inherent in morals of mankind. If there is no objective standard, there is no perfection, there is no good, there is no bad, there is no right, there is no wrong. Middle Eastern terrorists have every right to slam planes into civilian buildings in the claim of Islamic Jihad, and they're not wrong, because if morals are man made then no one has any more of a legitimate claim on what is right than anyone else, save that perhaps one is stronger than the other. We trust the opinion of a doctor because he has studied the body and understands how it functions, not because he made up how the body functions. Likewise, if a man is to be an expert on morals it cannot really be because he "made it up", otherwise, we're all experts and we're all perfect people.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Absolutely Confusing
So, I've been thinking a lot about these random existential questions, and there comes to mind a question that I've been asked previously, and only recently did I recall how to work out the solution. The question being; "What is wrong with the statement; 'There are no absolutes except for the fact that there are no absolutes.'?" Which in appearance seems to be a legitimate statement. However, if we look at it from a logical standpoint, I think we can firmly diffuse the statement has being somewhat self-contradictory. For the sake of brevity, assume that when I use the phrase "there are no absolutes" that the exception is implicitly included.
Let's start with an easy statement. Let us for the sake of argument assume that the statement, "There are no frogs" is true. Therefore it logically follows that the statement "Kermit is a frog" would therefore be false. If we were then to assume that the following carries over into the realm of absolutes, then perhaps it works out. So if the statement; "There are no absolutes" is true, then therefore the statement; "This is an absolute" would be false. For the sake of simplicity I have used the idea of an absolute the same as frog, therefore the generic statement; "This is an absolute" is sort of a representation of any absolute that we can think of, such as; "gravity is absolute". The same logic carries over, right? Just as Kermit cannot be a frog in a world without frogs, "this" or gravity cannot be an absolute in a world without absolutes. Yes, but here is where the comparison falls apart; consider the nature of the word absolute, or rather just what does absolute mean? The statement; "there is no absolute", in short, can be summed up to mean that nothing is always true. If that's the case then, we come to something of a conundrum. In this "absolute-less" world, we know that the statement; "this is an absolute" is false, however, in a world without absolutes, does this mean that the statement can also be true? Here is where our logical mind cannot reconcile the statement. If the statement were to be true, at least sometimes, then that means that "this" is in fact an absolute, be it only sometimes, meaning that there are absolutes outside of there being no absolutes. However, if the statement were always false, then the statement "the statement 'this is an absolute' is false" is always, or absolutely, true, another absolute. By claiming an absolute, it logically defeats the premise that there are no absolutes, I really don't see a way it can be logically reconciled, therefore, I think the statement, "there are absolutes" must be true.
Let's start with an easy statement. Let us for the sake of argument assume that the statement, "There are no frogs" is true. Therefore it logically follows that the statement "Kermit is a frog" would therefore be false. If we were then to assume that the following carries over into the realm of absolutes, then perhaps it works out. So if the statement; "There are no absolutes" is true, then therefore the statement; "This is an absolute" would be false. For the sake of simplicity I have used the idea of an absolute the same as frog, therefore the generic statement; "This is an absolute" is sort of a representation of any absolute that we can think of, such as; "gravity is absolute". The same logic carries over, right? Just as Kermit cannot be a frog in a world without frogs, "this" or gravity cannot be an absolute in a world without absolutes. Yes, but here is where the comparison falls apart; consider the nature of the word absolute, or rather just what does absolute mean? The statement; "there is no absolute", in short, can be summed up to mean that nothing is always true. If that's the case then, we come to something of a conundrum. In this "absolute-less" world, we know that the statement; "this is an absolute" is false, however, in a world without absolutes, does this mean that the statement can also be true? Here is where our logical mind cannot reconcile the statement. If the statement were to be true, at least sometimes, then that means that "this" is in fact an absolute, be it only sometimes, meaning that there are absolutes outside of there being no absolutes. However, if the statement were always false, then the statement "the statement 'this is an absolute' is false" is always, or absolutely, true, another absolute. By claiming an absolute, it logically defeats the premise that there are no absolutes, I really don't see a way it can be logically reconciled, therefore, I think the statement, "there are absolutes" must be true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)