Which is better: "nothing is absolute except the relative" or "nothing is absolute including the relative"?

Question

duwbryd: I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "nothing is not absolute including the relative." If nothing (no religion, no philosophy, no concept) is not absolute, then are you saying that all things are absolute?

Also, you sound optimistic in suggesting that one can know what is or is not (through transcending mind and though). Could you suggest a way in which this may be done?

pr0ph3t1cl1v1ty: if neither is true, then could you suggest something that is true?

Answer 1

nothing is absolute including the relative yet nothing is not absolute including the relative. the mind is not capable of knowing what is or is not. What you are looking for is beyond mind or thought but you may find it if you keep looking.

Answer 2

I'd have to go with the second one. I don't think even the most extreme relativists can know for certain that all things are relative. However, I believe that people can think they know for certain that all things are relative. But their belief in their dogma is just like anyone else’s: it is a starting point, unsupported by real world evidence, from which people can attempt to understand their world.


Vicky: you say that 'there is nothing which is permanent' and yet you say that the speed of light is constant. Some astronomers believe that the speed of light will always remain the same. Other astronomers believe it will change eventually. How can you be sure that the astronomers in the second group are correct?

Answer 3

What a conundrum.
Nothing is absolute? I wouldn't take the chance on any of the physical absolutes being relative. Fall of a cliff and hope that for once gravity will be relative and you will fall up?
If you want no absolutes, then the first statement would be the right one.

Answer 4

If by "which is better" you mean "which is correct" I can answer your question...

"Absolute" and "relative" are contrapositive concepts. Thus your first statement that says "nothing is absolute except the relative" (which implies that "relative" is something of an "absolute") is a fallacy and can never be "better".

On the other hand, your second statement that says "NOTHING IS ABSOLUTE..." is a fallacy regardless of what statements follows. There are things that are absolute!!

Answer 5

Neither is true.

Edit: Nothing relative, by nature of being relative, can be absolute. What is relative relates to different viewpoints, and therefore cannot be absolute. What is absolute appears the same to all the various viewpoints, regardless of their positions.

Answer 6

my interpretation for absolute and relative -

absolute: something which can be measured in some way, without referring to any referance frame. e.g speed of light. It is constant throughout universe.

relative: everything else that is not absolute is relative.

In one school of philosophy, ethics, it is said that there is no virtue that is absolute. Everything is relative. for you if something is good, it is also relative to your reference for the word "good".

i think, "nothing is absolute except relateive" is better.
it says there is nothing which is permanent or can be meausred by its own.

Answer 7

nothing is absolute including the relative

Answer 8

there are absolutes and nepatism is debatable . but I get the impression the answer lies not in the statement but the direction in which the statement points .look for the fine grey areas and what they are relative to or extenuating circumstance for instance . black and white rules and generalizations are sometimes subject to special details that dictate good judgment to varying degree.
peace

Answer 9

Depends. Are you mentioned in the relative's will?

Answer 10

Depends what you mean by "better." I like the paradoxical nature of the first one.