The Absolute: A Comparative Analysis

Superior Essays
Since human knowledge is relative, human beings consciously (or often unconsciously) dismiss the relative by creating an absolute. This absolute is created by an absolute which, by virtue of its human origins, is relative. However, it functions in both the practical and theoretical life of human as a genuine absolute. Thus, the absolute is relatively absolutized by the human person. Being simply humans we try to make sense of the inexplicable, but what do we really now and can we possibly know it? These questions are why we create absolutes, to make sense of the world and determine what is “real” knowledge. Absolutes are a simple minded way of thinking, there is no one way things can be perceived.
These absolutes create a large problem for
…show more content…
To some if they haven’t seen it or experienced than it either isn 't real or it never happened, once again it circles back to subjectivity or objectivity. Are you willing to say something is certain or absolute just because someone tells you that “the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images, that is certain” or do you take on blind faith and the fact that you haven 't experienced anything else before (Plato 3). Is that all life and knowledge can be what is set right in front of us even though we haven 't searched but like 10 percent of the earth’s capacity. Just because we haven 't seen doesn’t mean it’s not real. This doesn’t mean that we have been given knowledge though as “universal consent proves nothing innate” because nothing is or will ever be universally agreed upon just as there is no one person is the same as another (Locke B). Innate ideas are created by people to try to explain how we know some things, but the problem is that if someone disagrees with that innate idea then it 's not true because for it to be true everyone has to agree upon the idea. That is the stipulation with innate ideas they have to be the same for everyone for it to be true. So how do you obtain knowledge, subjectively that’s how. Since it would nearly be impossible to have everyone agree on one thing to be innately acquired or to say all that is out there is what you can see if you combine the two ways and allow for some kind of give and take then it would be more plausible. This would also allow for the individual to perceive for himself what would be correct. Nothing would be forced onto the individual they would have their decision and own thought that they would base their own belief

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Humans contain a deep yearning for knowledge. Given that the previous sentence is merely an assertion with no justification, there is no need for one to believe me – it may be true, but until that is justified and found to be true, it is nothing beyond a belief. Prior to a proposition’s justification, one should not be infer that it is knowledge. Justification for objective knowledge can be divided into two categories: a posteriori arguments and a priori arguments. These categories take many names; a posteriori is similar to empirical arguments, which are defined as observational proof.…

    • 1153 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He has these "Non-causal theories" which argues that "our actions must be entirely uncaused." (SEP, pg.1), yet, without a cause, that would mean every action we make is entirely dependent upon randomness. Another counter that against him is that "Non-causal theories of action and free will reject the view that there is an agent who is responsible for causation." (SEP, pg.1) And in all my readings of Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy there is not one Non-causal account that meets "the requirements of stating what the control is and what it consists of." (SEP, pg.1) He believes it is all free will, but can't explain how.…

    • 1141 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    It also runs into the same problem with the good and bad argument that there is not universal superiority that we know of. We have an idea of what superiority is, but we could be completely wrong in that idea and therefor not know what is superior to something else at all. So, we have no way of scaling superiority there for no way of knowing if there is something superior to all else. Even if we did have some way to scale all things universal on a superiority scale just because something is more superior than everything else doesn’t mean that thing is God. We might look at it like it is a god because there is nothing superior to it but it doesn’t mean it is God the way we think of and see God.…

    • 1218 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Kierkegaard Subjectivity

    • 1156 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Indeed, that is what Kierkegaard means when he says that “Truth is subjectivity”: to find the truth, the most important is to find how one relates to objective facts (realities) rather than noticing those facts. Notice that he is not disregarding the importance of objective knowledge but nay putting it on a second plane with respect to one’s relationship to it. Subjectivity is then proper to the individual, it is what he—but no one else—has. Everyone possesses their own and unique subjectivity. Each individual is different.…

    • 1156 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    In regards to the objection that Mills makes of the ideal human being an abstraction, Rawls responds by agreeing that that Mills is most likely correct in stating that the idealized human is an abstraction of himself. This isn’t a problem however, unless it is really true that it is impossible to get a real idealized human. We have to be able in this sense to describe humans. It may be true that no actual reasoner can ever generate a description of the ideal reasoner, but the question is whether or not it is useful to aspire to this model. Rawls believes that this model is necessary and it is a useful decide for the purposes we are engaged in.…

    • 1436 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Without absolute truth, life then has no limits, no constants to back off of, which is quite contrary to the human experience. Mankind is quite used to having certain principles, constantly working, such as gravity, causation, and morality. Without these absolute truths, then there would be no structure to life, and so reality could be changed and these principles could be altered in one moment to the next. Now, it could also be said that man could have certain truths that are real to himself or that are absolute only for his perspective. From this, he would not be able to prove that others have that same structure, because no one can change their perspective to become another’s.…

    • 772 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    If we never can know what the universal end is or how to get there, then we can never progress towards it and therefore never achieve it. It is possible to argue that since we each strive to be the best version of ourselves, this can be defined as the universal end. I find this definition as incomplete and inconsistent because it is a sweepingly broad term when in reality each person has a different “best version” in mind. Even though this argument may make sense, Aquinas would probably have some obvious objections. First, Aquinas would argue that the universal end does not need to be achieved in order to strive towards it, or it can be achieved in some way that transcends the material world.…

    • 1321 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    According to Sartre in this article, decisions cannot be made on abstract moral principles because these moral principles are too generalized directly apply to concrete realities. More specifically, he states, “If values are vague, and if they are always too broad for the concrete and specific case we are considering, the only thing left for us is to trust our instincts” (Sartre 351). People, without moral principles, would not feel restricted to act in a certain “morally correct” way, for there would be no “morally correct” way. As Sartre believes, each particular situation is subject to an individual’s interpretation. The individual, then, has the freedom to act in any way they wish, and also the freedom to judge, based off of the responses of others and their own ethical anguish, whether or not they made the best possible decision.…

    • 1131 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Firth tries hard to give us many explanations of an Ideal Observer but his giveaway is when he mentions that an Ideal Observer does not need to exist while claiming Ideal Observer is normal. Why go through so much effort to contradict himself? I can only conclude that Firth’s version of an Ideal Observer cannot exist. There is no true definition of normal, normal consists of human beings that are simply imperfect and biased. Whether or not an Ideal Observer thinks he or she is not, bias is deeply hidden in all of…

    • 2027 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    There are still problems with the theory. One being that it can be easily just become another form of relativism. It can also be argued that many different psychological factors can lead a person to holding a belief, and that through pragmatism it can be justified. It could also be said that the Pragmatic theory itself is contradictory as some beliefs must correspond to a reality, thus causing it to validate the Correspondence Theory of Truth which was criticized by the early pragmatist. It was also not addressed that it we can never say an idea is true or false, because we cannot know all of the possible long term consequences of a belief.…

    • 729 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays