On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 01:18:48 GMT, Nam Nguyen <email@example.com> wrote:
> > >Nam Nguyen wrote: > >> >> >> Lester Zick wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 07:03:50 GMT, Nam Nguyen <firstname.lastname@example.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> If we care to consider absolute truth, then there is no such >>>> thing as an absolute truth. >>> >>> >>> Well thanks for the input. Can we take your word for this? >> >> >> I don't see why not, unless an absolute truth could be demonstrated >> to exist! Would >> >> (1) (P => (P \/ Q)) >> >> constitute an absolute truth? Well, at this moment for some odd reason >> "\/" to me means what "/\" means to a lot of people (and vice versa for >> "/\")!. So (1) to me is not a truth; so it can not be an absolute >> truth that *must be universally recognized without exception*! >> > >I hope though my response would *not* constitute that I'd like to >engage into a philosophical arguing without end. I'd just like to >point out that any argument that is based on "absolute" truth is >a futile one. For what it's, imho, worth the foundation of logical >reasoning has been built on relativity of truth and interpretation, >not on an absoluteness!
Well, Nam, without going on endlessly I would like to ask if arguments based on "absolute truth" are indeed futile, are arguments based on "absolute falseness" necessarily equally futile?