NationStates Jolt Archive

If all history is relative, there can be no such concept as being. Discuss.

Discuss. Or just stare.

*stares blankly*

why can't there? :s

"being"? Do you mean "existing"? There can only be a relationship between any two things if both things exist.

I'm sorry, but you're not coming across very clearly. You'll have to define your terms.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

Does this thread come with cliff notes? I don't understand the question.

*whispers* methinks his aim was to confuse...

*wanders off*

The above post may contain traces of sarcasm

Does that mean the question was sarcastic?

:confused:

If all history is relative, then there is at least something in a relative sense, which constitutes the actors of this history. Therefore, having any history at all, realtive or not, requires that there are beings. If however you mean the concept of being in the sense of the present participle of the verb to be (I am being chased by the police) then the concept will only be relative as the events are relative.

well, it can't be Thursdays, because I could never get the hang of Thursdays.

and you spelled 'ecumenical' wrong :P

If all history is relative, there can be no such concept as being. Discuss.
No.
I don't wanna.
I wanna cookie.
I WANNA COOKIE!!
:mad: :mad: :mad:

Hey, cookie!
:)

(eats cookie)

Nice cookie!
:D :D :D :D :D

*whispers* methinks his aim was to confuse...

*wanders off*

Oh I see, he is asking a question which makes no sense but which seems quite deep and intellectually stimulating so some wanna be Einstein can post a 9 page response, and then we can all point and laugh at him for taking it seriously. I see.

I found it on a philosophy paper from 1978. It confused the crap out of me.

The poll wasn't in the original version.

Father Jack says: "That would be an eccuminical matter!"

I found it on a philosophy paper from 1978. It confused the crap out of me.
Heh.

I'm still having trouble with the phrase "history is relative". What does this mean? Are we talking about perceptions or beliefs about history?

This discussion is not going to get very far if we can't get these definitions straightened out.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

Heh.

I'm still having trouble with the phrase "history is relative". What does this mean? Are we talking about perceptions or beliefs about history?

This discussion is not going to get very far if we can't get these definitions straightened out.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

Well, I'd have to say it was history itself. History is entirely relative as to where the observe is standing in time, and alters both in size and nature as you move through it.

And by 'being', I'd imagine it is, in this context, 'existentence'.

Well, I'd have to say it was history itself. History is entirely relative as to where the observe is standing in time, and alters both in size and nature as you move through it.


Not entirely relative. For example, there are historical fact that cannot be disputed, no matter where one stands or what time one stands in.

eg. The Nazis rose to power in the inter war years and started and lost WWII.

William the Conquerer invaded England in 1066.

etc

etc

(you get my point)

Details are different, and various events are a bit dodgy (eg the JFK assasination).

Or have I missed the point?

Huh???

*scratches head*

*yawns*

Father Jack says: "That would be an eccuminical matter!"

It works for everything, except when you want a DRINK!

Not entirely relative. For example, there are historical fact that cannot be disputed, no matter where one stands or what time one stands in.

eg. The Nazis rose to power in the inter war years and started and lost WWII.

William the Conquerer invaded England in 1066.

etc

etc

(you get my point)

Details are different, and various events are a bit dodgy (eg the JFK assasination).

Or have I missed the point?


Not sure. I was more taking history simly as a concept of time, rather than as a string of past events. Also, even if taken as events, things are once again highly relative, given that we must look at opinion; what was cutting-edge technology in 1066 is now barbaric.

Not entirely relative. For example, there are historical fact that cannot be disputed, no matter where one stands or what time one stands in.

eg. The Nazis rose to power in the inter war years and started and lost WWII.

William the Conquerer invaded England in 1066.

etc

etc

(you get my point)

Details are different, and various events are a bit dodgy (eg the JFK assasination).

Or have I missed the point?I think you have missed the point. The question actually tells us to assume that all history is relative. Doesn't matter whether you believe it to be relative or not.

In this case, assuming all history is relative, absolute truth does not exist, as our perception changes based upon whereabouts in time and space we are. This then means that what is true for you isn't neccessarily true for me.

However, I don't know if this prevents things from "being". As Descartes said "I think, therefore I am". The relativism (is that a word?) of history doesn't prevent me from thinking. Therefore it doesn't prevent me from being.

Not sure. I was more taking history simly as a concept of time, rather than as a string of past events. Also, even if taken as events, things are once again highly relative, given that we must look at opinion; what was cutting-edge technology in 1066 is now barbaric.
Ahh right.

I think you have missed the point. The question actually tells us to assume that all history is relative. Doesn't matter whether you believe it to be relative or not.

In this case, assuming all history is relative, absolute truth does not exist, as our perception changes based upon whereabouts in time and space we are. This then means that what is true for you isn't neccessarily true for me.

However, I don't know if this prevents things from "being". As Descartes said "I think, therefore I am". The relativism (is that a word?) of history doesn't prevent me from thinking. Therefore it doesn't prevent me from being.


Ah, but given that absolute truth cannot exist in this case, and also given the post-modernist theory that all Descartes proved by saying 'I think' is that he thunk, and not that he in fact WAS, does that not discount the posibilty of being entirely? Is being anything without a single absolute truth to measure it by?

Ah, but given that absolute truth cannot exist in this case, and also given the post-modernist theory that all Descartes proved by saying 'I think' is that he thunk, and not that he in fact WAS, does that not discount the posibilty of being entirely? Is being anything without a single absolute truth to measure it by?
It only discounts the possibility of absolute being. However, relative to your own location, things can be.

As Father Jack said, That would be an eccuminical matter.

God, people will add to a thread about any old shite, won't they?

Father Jack says: "That would be an eccuminical matter!"

father ted says

well if its cinnamen

If

all history is relative, then can be no such concept as being

Yes, I modified that. Problem is, your "if" isn't reality, IMO. Making this little more than a mental exercise in logic.

We learn the mistakes of the past to better our future.

father ted says

well if its cinnamen
Look at this Dougal. There's a perfectly square piece of dirt on this window