If it is proved by logic and reason - it is conditional and not absolute. This a an absolute statement using logic which Therefore contradicts itself. It is just a restatement of that old stupidity: All things are relative.If it is proved by logic and reason - it is conditional and not absolute.
Exactly, logic cannot be used to prove an absolute, only conditional truths can be proved. Absolute (non-conditional) statements, however, are very often used to begin a syllogism. For example, "It is better to be kind than cruel."
When used thus as a foundation to construct another conditional proof, this statement is deemed an axiom or "self-evident." It's key that logic cannot be used to "prove" this statement without making it conditional, i.e. no longer an absolute value.
This is due to the mechanics of the tool of logic. It cannot "see" (prove) absolutes, it must assume them to use them at all - which it does quite often to great benefit. It's an excellent tool.
The question remains: "but do absolute truths exist in reality?" It's not logical to leap from "logic cannot be used to see it" to "therefore it does not exist." This applies the same error of scientism to logic - logicism.
It is just a restatement of that old stupidity: All things are relative.
Actually, no. It is a statement that absolutes are beyond the tool of logic. As evidenced perfectly by trying on your next statement logically:
All things are relative.
Including this statement. Therefore, if this we agree with this, the truth of this statement is relative - dependent upon conditions. So, logically, under some conditions it would be also true that: All things are not relative (i.e. absolute).
Therefore, we end up with another performative contradiction:
Depending on the conditions, "All things are relative" is a true statement; and, "All things are not relative" is a true statement.
Since both cannot be true - and since logic can only be used for conditional (relative) proofs - we see logic illustrating its own limitation.
My definition is unconditional values; inherent value, in logic: "self-evident" or axiomatic.
Well, from a Randian point of view there is no such thing as an “inherent value” since a value implies a valuer. What you value may not be what I value. Some people don’t even value life, which is why they commit suicide. An unconditional value is not an absolute one, this is just your definition, fine as far as it goes.
An absolute value is one that cannot be denied without negating itself. One cannot deny existence without denying ones own existence as an agent to deny existence. One cannot deny life without denying oneself as an alive being that makes that denial, (rocks cannot deny anything.) Thus I disagree with your self serving definition. Second, we'd have to define what we mean by "know." If you define it as conceptual knowledge, then, by definition, no other exists.
I do. I, obviously, define it elsewise. We know things we cannot conceptualize. Ever had an experience you couldn't put into words? Did you still "know" it?
Because you are born into a sea of concepts you cannot formulate such ideas without relying upon concepts to define them. If you had no concepts then an experience would only be an experience but it would not be knowledge. (Like the guy they found recently in Fiji who was raised in a chicken coop, roosting and clucking away. I can guarantee you he didn’t know when he was cold, he only experienced the sensation.) I have never had an experience that I couldn’t eventually conceptualize. I maintain concepts are abstractions, less than the experience itself.
This is inaccurate. The concept of tree is not an abstraction, it is a concrete. An abstraction is a collection of concrete concepts subsumed under a concept that is not a concrete, (or a group of abstractions represented by yet another abstraction.) My favorite example is, “Hand me a furniture.” It sounds absurd because furniture is an abstraction. Chairs, tables, lamps, rugs and couches are concretes. A faulty understanding of concepts. "Hot" could communicate something to someone who never experienced it. However if they burned themself, they'd know "hot" much more fully.
Actually this is not correct either. One experience does not make a concept or knowledge. It takes a minimum of two exposures to similar experiences to define a concept and therefore knowledge. The comparison of multiple exposures is a absolute requirement for knowledge and conceptual development. A little reflection will prove this true.
(you quote me quoting you) If it is proved by logic and reason - it is conditional and not absolute. Exactly, logic cannot be used to prove an absolute, only conditional truths can be proved.
You misunderstood me, (sorry for not being clearer.) Using this statement I was restating your position and then made the point the you are making an absolute statement based upon logic, which you hold cannot be done: Thus you contradict yourself. By saying that - if it is proved by logic then it is not absolute, is in itself an absolute statement based upon logic. You refute your own premise.
I don’t care for your example: "It is better to be kind than cruel." since this is a value judgment. A better one would be, “All human beings are mortal.” Or, “All masses are subject to gravity.” It's key that logic cannot be used to "prove" this statement without making it conditional, i.e. no longer an absolute value.
Another absolute statement that must be subject to its own limitation. If it is key that logic cannot be used to prove a statement without making it conditional, then the statement that logic cannot be used to prove a statement without making it conditional applies to this categorically absolute statement as well. Meaning it isn’t valid and logic can be used to prove a statement without making it conditional, i.e., it is absolute. It's not logical to leap from "logic cannot be used to see it" to "therefore it does not exist."
True, Fallacy of Proving the Negative. Or, as the old saying goes, “Lack of proof isn’t proof of lack.” It is a statement that absolutes are beyond the tool of logic.
This is an absolute statement based upon logic, (faulty though the premise is.) If true it contradicts itself.
(you quote me) All things are relative. Including this statement. Therefore, if this we agree with this, the truth of this statement is relative - dependent upon conditions. So, logically, under some conditions it would be also true that: All things are not relative (i.e. absolute)
You just refuted your own point again. All things are not relative, therefore some things are absolute. This is a logical proof of absolutes. Therefore, we end up with another performative contradiction:
Only for you, I disagree. Depending on the conditions, "All things are relative" is a true statement; and, "All things are not relative" is a true statement.
If some things are absolute, as you admit “, logically, under some conditions it would be also true that: All things are not relative (i.e. absolute) ” then the statement "All things are relative" is logically invalid. It is false. It is untrue. It is self contradictory and THEREFORE, logically invalid. Or as Hugh Akston said, “Contradictions do not exist, check your premises.” Since both cannot be true - and since logic can only be used for conditional (relative) proofs - we see logic illustrating its own limitation.
You Beg the Question that “logic can only be used for conditional (relative) proofs ” which your own arguments refute. By your own reasoning “All things are not relative” means that logic is not limited to only non absolute proofs. P>
We don’t see here a limitation of logic, but an understanding of logic.