I think you are an intelligent person because of the deep stuff you are bringing up.
Here is what others and myself have been pointing out to you.
If "there are no absolute truths", an assertion you take to be true, then it must be false that "there are no absolute truths". Therefore, since it is false that "there are no absolute truths", then there must exists at least one absolute truth. This contradicts your thesis that there exists no absolute truths, and goes a step further, it PROVES that there exists at least one absolute truth. Others in the commentaries have said this to you, to no effect. You're intelligent, I can't understand why you can't see this.
Your issue with absolute good and absolute evil is also surprising. Is it evil to hold that there exist absolute truths? That's been the whole point of your article. This is your thesis as I've read it:
*It is absolutely evil to hold that any absolute truths exist"
(so, you argue, we should not hold them; that's what you're trying to convince us of).
Of course, that contradicts your position, because this is an absolute evil: to hold an absolute truth as such. Do you see it? From your premises logically flows an absolute evil. Similarly we can rewrite the statement in terms of an absolute good:
*It is absolutely good to hold that no absolute truths exists"
(and because it is good to hold that, we should reject the existence of absolute truths as something absolutely good to do).
So your assertions naturally lead to contradiction: some absolute truths and falsehoods exist, and some absolute goods and evils exist.
I think you have to let go of your position of absolute relativism. The metaphysical system that I'm developing in my steemit blog (just two articles so far) show how the existence of relative, contingent realities imply the necessarily preexisting unities, that are absolute. I invite you to check them out. Cheers.
Nop. That is a false dichotomy. If there are no absolute truths even the premise of my statement can be taken with a grain if salt.
I'm sorry. I see no dichotomy. Which dichotomy?
You then write, "If there are no absolute truths even the premise of my statement can be taken with a grain if salt". That's my position! Now it looks like you're trying to support me in saying the there must exist some absolute truth so that your premise not be taken "with a grain of salt", but seriously. So I don't understand you.
You should not want your premise to be taken with a grain of salt as that undermines all that follows...
I think your premises are "There is no absolute truth", and almost repetitively, "There is no absolute falsehood". I say repetitively because each statement implies the other. For example, if there is no absolute falsehood, then it is absolutely true that there exists no absolute falsehood. So these two premises imply each other and can be almost considered repetitive.
The the other premise is "All absolute goods and absolute evils are illusory", because you hold to an absolute moral relativism. Ontologically, you are also an absolute relativist ("There exist no absolutes"). Have I misunderstood you?
Clarify if you wish. Or let it pass. That might be better.
not really. I just accept my human fallibility and inability to access all available information in order to reach truth.
I never said, there is no absolute truth, absolutely. I wouldn't know so everybody else
More or less you could say that I accept that nothing, ever can be known with absolute certainty
It seems to me that "I can know nothing with absolute certainty" is an absolute truth, that I accept. Maybe you don't use the term "absolute" as I expect.
It's hard for me to read you young people. I'm only a little over 50, but I feel that with you and many others on steemit, I'm talking past you. I am guessing that you must be a young man of less than 30. Maybe you're college age and into technology. You come from a background, with many or all in your generation, that does not immediately square with mine. No, I don't pretend to be psychic, and I might be wrong with these guesses. I misinterpreted things you said as arrogant, and I put a firm hand to you. I shall have to be more patient. This is a dangerous medium in this sense: if I had your body language by which to interpret your meaning, I probably would have gotten a different sense of you.