I know that this might not be directly on topic, but the idea of E-Prime has really raised some questions for me. Primarily, I'm concerned with absolute truth. If something cannot be true one hundred percent of the time, then how do you explain something like unconditional love? For example, my parents love me. They love me now and I am fully convinced that they will love me forever. Even if I go off and destroy me life. Yes, they would be deeply concerned about me, probably angry and confused, as well, but that doesn't change the fact that they love me. Would it be wrong to say that the love my parents have for me is an absolute truth? This is just an example, but I am very curious to hear what my classmates have to say about this and absolute truth, in general.
(Emily T.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Their unconditional love for you is only a matter of perspective. From your point of view, they love you unconditionally; from your parents' point of view, they love you conditionally. But that doesn't stop some crazy man from appearing and saying, "It seems to me that Emily Thompson's parents don't love her." He doesn't have to support that with logic or fact or anything, because it's simply his opinion, as crazy as it may appear from your perspective.
-Paige Walker-
(P.S.-I'm certain your parents do totally love you forever; I'm just trying to make a point.)
I agree with Paige in this. I mean isn't emotion basically the core of all opinions, which expresses your point of view?
Also, emotion is never static. It can change from even one second to another. So I don't think that such emotion can be considered as absolute.
Paige is absolutely correct in stating that everything is relative, even parental love. For example, some parents may push their children very hard and motivate them to succeed. Someone looking in on that family might say that the parents are being cruel to impose a goal upon a child, while someone else may say that is is a symbol of love and affection to encourage one's child to reach for his dreams and work for them. Paradoxical sayings, such as "you've got to be cruel to be kind", are much more clearly expressed in E-Prime: "The action that you must take may seem kind to some but cruel to others." Similarly, even parental unconditional love can be perceived in different ways.
But seriously, of course your parents love you Emily. :)
Here's a question in response to what some of you have said: is there such thing as absolute truth for each individual person? If you would say yes, that absolute truth is relative to the person, then doesn't that completely destroy the concept of absolute truth to begin with? Absolute truth is not objective, right?
Another thought. What if there is such a thing as absolute truth, but it is up to each person whether they choose to believe it? So, looking from this angle, it may seem that everything is relative, but really there is truth that some choose to believe and others choose not to believe.
Continuing with the thought above, say, for example, that it is the absolute truth that my parents love me, but some choose to believe that it is the absolute truth, while others choose to disagree and say that they perceive my parents' love for me to be ingenuine.
I hope I'm making sense. Any thoughts?
(Emily T.)
(By the way, I don't take it personally that you guys think my parents love for me is relative, I just don't agree :))
I think the problem (Followup question) here is not a question of love but the concept of absolute truth. The assertion that such a thing exists directly contradicts with the essential principle upon which the Toulmin Method rests: deny absolutes in favor of qualifiers. If an absolute truth did exist, it would need to be conceived as true in all possible contexts without contradiction. The purpose of the Toulmin Method, however, is to limit the expanse of one's claims with the use of qualifiers for the creation of a more streamlined and manageable argument.
Your parents do love you, but it is unreasonable to say that they love you unconditionally. After all, conditionality (i.e. qualifiers) is essential to both language and perception. Perhaps the issue lies in our desire to translate "unconditional" to a concept of largeness in amount. Yes, the love exists, but even emotion is subject to the constraints of contexts and conditions.
Furthermore, perception comes into play not over the existence of absolute truth, but (principally) in the actual "creation" of truth. As it has been mentioned over and over in our discussions, our inability to see the whole "picture" due to our differing intensional worlds (And thus varying perceptions) and limited scope of thought and even physical vision, the "truth" according to each and every one of us can vary widely.
Another thought. What if there is such a thing as absolute truth, but it is up to each person whether they choose to believe it? So, looking from this angle, it may seem that everything is relative, but really there is truth that some choose to believe and others choose not to believe.
This intrigues me immensely! As much as we argue, however, there are always two or more sides to a single thought. Some already believe in their own "absolute truths." Some may even believe that they have found Truth (with a capital T). Yet as long as there is an opponent, nothing by any means may be considered absolute. In your heart, in your mind, and in your soul, it may be true. But in the hearts, minds, and souls of others, the truth may fluctuate.
If everyone in this galaxy were to agree upon the definition, and therefore the truth, of an argument, then all is good, well, and fine. But as long as there is another side to the matter (even on behalf of a single male or female), an absolute truth will be out of reach.
This was demonstrated in the political debates that occurred recently. The purpose of a dual party system is accredited to the disagreement in defintions. If all the galaxy agreed on the definition of fundamentals, for example, McCain would not have had to redefine it to appease the American people.
(Samantha Maliha)
"As much as we argue, however, there are always two or more sides to a single thought. Some already believe in their own absolute truths... Yet as long as there is an opponent, nothing by any means may be considered absolute."
Thanks, Sam, for the comments. I appreciate them. Just a little bit of clarification on what I meant in my most recent comment. When I suggested that there could be absolute Truth that some choose to believe and others choose not to believe, I meant not that there won't be opposing sides and people disagreeing, but that one side could be right. I am not at all suggesting that this would be true in every case, merely that there could be cases when truth is absolute, no matter how many sides there are to the argument.
One other thought concerning the above statements: is it possible for each person to have his/her own individual absolute truths? I mentioned this earlier, and I'm very interested to hear response:
"Is there such thing as absolute truth for each individual person? If you would say yes, that absolute truth is relative to the person, then doesn't that completely destroy the concept of absolute truth to begin with? Absolute truth is not objective, right?"
In relation to this, I would say that if you're going to get rid of absolute truth, you must get rid of it altogether. In this case, there would be no such thing as absolute truth "for each individual". (I guess my point is that there either is absolute truth, or there is not. Does that make any sense?)
(Emily T.)
Post a Comment