Absolutes

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I find that the people on ILX (and IRL) I tend to get most annoyed with are people who come up with this absolute statements about behavior or society or art or whatever, and then steadfastly defend them without expressing any doubt or movement at all. I really have trouble understanding people who have these black-and-white opinions. I feel like I can almost always see both sides of an argument, even to a small degree, which I'm not saying is a strength necessarily. I understand that sometimes do this to be a devil's advocate or to make a rhetorical argument or just for the fun of being contrary, not because they necessarily feel that way. But other times, they really seem to be that way.

How do you feel about absolute statements, and the people who feel comfortable making them?

Disclaimer 1: Despite the fact that I've been going back and forth with Tuomos on the "single women" thread, this is not about him. I love Tuomos.

Disclaimer 2: First person to make an "Absolut" joke is lame.

― n/a (Nick A.), Thursday, 11 August 2005 14:50 (twenty years ago)

i don't mind someone saying 'X is definitely classic/dud' as long as they back it up properly. this just doesn't happen much of the time, but that's people (and not just on t'interweb).

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Thursday, 11 August 2005 15:00 (twenty years ago)

I don't feel particularly comfortable around people who believe in things absolutely. Sometimes I think our ability to rationalize is a curse.

― The Milkmaid (of Human Kindness) (The Milkmaid), Thursday, 11 August 2005 15:04 (twenty years ago)

I don't see why you should always have to back something up, I like certain things, don't like other things that much - I don't always know why. You should feel free to make take it or leave it throw away comments if you like. Then again, I don't really get involved in threads which are that dramatic about defending absolutes.

― jel -- (jel), Thursday, 11 August 2005 15:21 (twenty years ago)

I like absolutes as bloody-minded debate starters, but not much else.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 11 August 2005 15:23 (twenty years ago)

I think it's pointless Jel, in the context of where a proper discussion is being held on a permanent message board at least.

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Thursday, 11 August 2005 15:24 (twenty years ago)

Also possibly there's a distinction between OVER-simplifying something in order to reduce it to an absolute because you can't/won't mentally juggle uncertainty and just feeling strongly about a point which you won't concede?

― Laurel, Thursday, 11 August 2005 15:26 (twenty years ago)

I only really care about it on ILM to be honest, which is a critics hive really, so I want well reasoned arguments on there rather than just 'poison roxx u r all gaye'.

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Thursday, 11 August 2005 15:26 (twenty years ago)

but sometimes people are jumping all over something you like, and you just get the urge to pipe up and say "hey! I like them!"

You thinking it's pointless is an absolute, btw :)

― jel -- (jel), Thursday, 11 August 2005 15:27 (twenty years ago)

I am feeling slightly meek and defensive because I'm afraid I have crossed this line of n/a's -- I've made myself at home on ILX the past few weeks but don't really know lots of the people here and have I gotten sloppy, I think, in assuming I was among old friends.

― Laurel, Thursday, 11 August 2005 15:30 (twenty years ago)

I like absolute as a bloody-mary starter.

― Wiggy (Wiggy), Thursday, 11 August 2005 18:11 (twenty years ago)

http://stat.discogs.com/R/t/61355-001.jpg

― geoff (gcannon), Thursday, 11 August 2005 18:22 (twenty years ago)

there's no escaping absolute statements, they are almost a flaw inherent in language.

"there are no absolutes" = absolute

the trick is to try to be fluid enough to be able to move from one absolute to another when the situation calls for it (ie, when the evidence mounts against it, or when the pragmatics of the situation demand it, or whatever, even here i cant say when it's best to abandon an absolute and when to stand by it)

― ryan (ryan), Thursday, 11 August 2005 18:22 (twenty years ago)

"How do you feel about absolute statements, and the people who feel comfortable making them?"

Ambivalent.

― Stewart Osborne (Stewart Osborne), Thursday, 11 August 2005 18:23 (twenty years ago)

and to quote quine, what i am saying applies especially to what i am saying. (xpost)

― ryan (ryan), Thursday, 11 August 2005 18:23 (twenty years ago)

only a sith deals in absolutes

― adorno, Thursday, 11 August 2005 18:34 (twenty years ago)

absolutes can be dud but they're surely way better than wishy-washy relativistic bullshit.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 11 August 2005 18:43 (twenty years ago)

absolutes - c/d??

depends!

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 11 August 2005 18:44 (twenty years ago)

Pretty much my only joy in life is trying to figure out what tiny molecular absolutes are coming together to contruct what Stencil is calling "wishy-washy relativistic bullshit" and I'm going to choose to call "complexity."

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 11 August 2005 18:48 (twenty years ago)

Absolutes rox u r all gay.

― I'm Hi, Jared Fogle (ex machina), Thursday, 11 August 2005 18:51 (twenty years ago)

xpost -- This is why I don't always like when people stick to the "Poison ROXX" line -- because if people on both sides are willing to hop in and start comparing how their absolutes are built, there's this chance that you can break them down into smaller units and, you know, learn something.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 11 August 2005 18:51 (twenty years ago)

Plus: well, opinions are cool and everything, I like opinions, but opinions without context and consideration are basically arbitrary -- I could flip a coin and have it tell me whether Poison suck or rock. Once you've said it once, you kind of either have to expand or let it go.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 11 August 2005 18:53 (twenty years ago)

I can't be the only one who feels relief on seeing Nabisco in a thread; it says to me that all will be well, sense will be spoken. And the best part, N, is that no one can disagree with you on your birthday!

― Laurel, Thursday, 11 August 2005 18:58 (twenty years ago)

yeah, isn't that, like, modernism itself, or something? absolutes aren't 'decided on' let alone 'made up,' they just are, and we have to dig thru the layers of opinion to get at them.

― geoff (gcannon), Thursday, 11 August 2005 19:11 (twenty years ago)

It's tricky - obviously there are different sides to everything, but ultimately relativism will get you to the point where you can't make any judgement at all. I think in order for human societies to function you have to have some absolutes - such as "everyone has the right to life" - but then again it's often the absolutes that may bring these societies down.

Can there be a difference between a "harmful absolute" and a "benevolent absolute"? I guess not, because there's no absolute definitions for "benevolent" or "harmful"... Ugh, my head hurts!

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 11 August 2005 19:23 (twenty years ago)

what we need is a new sort of ontology--one which accepts the idea that things exist while they exist, and thus so do absolutes, but that they recede (in time perhaps?)--an ontology of decline, as vattimo puts it.

― ryan (ryan), Thursday, 11 August 2005 19:31 (twenty years ago)

yeah there's no right or wrong, sure, nabisco, whatever you say. everything's "all good in the hood," yo.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 11 August 2005 19:58 (twenty years ago)

Stencil, I can't tell if you're oversimplifying or undersimplifying what "relativism" even means. I mean, look, I can't think of anybody on Earth who doesn't believe in a sort of soft relativism, the idea that notions of "good" and "bad" are sometimes dependent upon context and circumstance and the like. "Thou shalt not kill," for instance, is not necessarily a moral absolute -- what if, to pick the obvious example, you're killing the terrorist who's about to kill countless others?

Which is obvious, but the part I'm interested in is how do we figure that out? We don't figure that out by trusting "thou shalt not kill" as an unquestioned absolute. We figure it out by asking why precisely it's bad to kill. We suspend out belief in it long enough to break it down into its constituent parts -- and once we do that, we can start to deal with situations in which the absolute doesn't function properly. If one of the supports resting behind "thou shalt not kill" turns out to be "it's not good when people are killed," then voila -- now we have our banal example where disregarding the absolute actually serves its purposes better.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 11 August 2005 20:09 (twenty years ago)

i absolutely hate being talked down to.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 11 August 2005 20:10 (twenty years ago)

absolutes can be dud but they're surely way better than wishy-washy relativistic bullshit.

Hahahahahaha.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 11 August 2005 20:12 (twenty years ago)

And as far as "hard" relativism, I think that's where we wander off into this land that's way too shaped by how a bunch of conservatives mischaracterized a bunch of European intellectuals. European intellectuals whose main line was less "there's is no right or wrong lets be irritating nihilists" and more "have you ever noticed how our ideas of 'right' and 'wrong' tend to be totally malleable and are usually defined by whoever has the power to define them however it serves?"

xpost Stencil I'm not talking down, I just have no idea how to deal with your often snotty and dismissive online persona and big eye-rolls like "whatever you say" in response to reasonable non-confrontational posts. If accidentally getting "talked down to" in response to stuff like that is the worst you get, it's because people are being charitable and keeping in mind that you're a generally nice guy who occasionally comes off on the internet like you're just waiting for someone to pick unnecessary fights with.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 11 August 2005 20:14 (twenty years ago)

i think you're projecting wayyyy too much, nabisco. you took my one-sentence post to much more importance than its worth. and i don't want to be a dick, esp. on your birthday, but in responding you started with this sort of l'il professor act that has little to do with what i wrote, and doesn't particularly inspire me to want to respond in any way other than a derogatory sense, because you don't seem particularly interested in what i might have to say, and instead are using what i wrote as a way to project your own insecurities and neuroses and whatnot on it. which is fine and all, i don't mind all that much, but i also don't care to "get engaged" in any way if whatever i write is gonna be misconstrued off the bat.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 11 August 2005 20:22 (twenty years ago)

you took my one-sentence post to much more importance than its worth

whatever i write is gonna be misconstrued off the bat

Wait, so you make a flip remark, and are then offended when its careful shades of meaning aren't understood?

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 11 August 2005 20:27 (twenty years ago)

hstencil is absolutely a curmudgeon.

― oops (Oops), Thursday, 11 August 2005 20:57 (twenty years ago)

i absolutely hate being talked down to.

maybe we shouldn't hang out then?

― Dr. Glen Y. Abreu (dr g), Thursday, 11 August 2005 20:59 (twenty years ago)

it didn't have "careful shades of meaning," it was definitely somewhat flip, but yeah it's kinda annoying to not be asked to clarify it. but whatever, it's not a big deal.

deaner are you that tall?

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 11 August 2005 21:01 (twenty years ago)

It's not absolutism that bothers me, so much as sweeping generalisations. Especially generalisations made about a group (in this particular case a gender) that the person is not even a member of.

― Alce Tea-Skirt (kate), Friday, 12 August 2005 07:21 (twenty years ago)

Yay! Complexity theory needs way more love around here. Ever since it sort of rearranged my view of existence I keep trying to talk to people about it, but so few people are familiar with even the broad strokes (which is all I really know). If you buy into complexity theory at all, it's like the universe has been kind of opened up in a new way. But almost nobody's noticed.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Friday, 12 August 2005 07:36 (twenty years ago)

(Complexity Theory was my obsession of the late spring and early summer. It does not get nearly enough love - I guess it's just not as glamourous as Chaos Theory, which is far less useful.)

― Alce Tea-Skirt (kate), Friday, 12 August 2005 07:38 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, I was just thinking the same thing. Complexity is really just chaos theory refined. Chaos Theory was a sexy name, but misleading because people thought it implied some kind of unknowable randomness. It was when they started understanding the patterns better that it became complexity. But right, Chaos sounds all punk-rock, where Complexity sounds wonkish. The thing is that the basic ideas of complexity aren't really hard to grasp. They're very intuitive and observable.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Friday, 12 August 2005 07:42 (twenty years ago)

Wasn't Complexity Theory originally going to be called Edge of Chaos which sounded a lot more glamourous?

It's certainly a lot more interesting. Chaos theory is about why chaotic things are totally unpredictable, because small causes can have huge effects. Complexity theory is about how very basic and simple constraints can create incredibly complex and rich patterns which seem almost... designed.

― Alce Tea-Skirt (kate), Friday, 12 August 2005 07:46 (twenty years ago)

But designed from the ground up, as opposed to the Intelligent Design hand-of-God idea. Designs arise from the interaction and interplay of competing and/or cooperative actions of individuals in complex systems, whether it's red blood cells or Tuscan tavern owners.

And it incorporates the idea of small causes having huge effects, because networks and feedback are crucial to the concept.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Friday, 12 August 2005 07:52 (twenty years ago)

(that is, a malfunction or mutation somewhere within the system can have magnified or amplified effects, either good or bad -- although in a lot of cases it will simply be drowned out or absorbed)

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Friday, 12 August 2005 07:53 (twenty years ago)

Yes, exactly. That human beings are generally right handed and snail spirals go a certain way and DNA works as a double helix because the Weak Nuclear Force is not entirely symmetical.

― Alce Tea-Skirt (kate), Friday, 12 August 2005 07:55 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, there is a sort of Unifying Theory sense to the idea, that there are forces and patterns that are observable and replicable from the tiniest micro-scales to galactic scales. A scientist/economist friend of mine thinks it's as important as entropy, conceptually -- a sort of countervailing organizational force. Not that that actually explains what it is; all anyone is really suggesting right now is that there are tendencies of behavior in complex systems. Where they come from is a really interesting question.

(none of which bears directly on absolutes, except in the sense of tending toward a circumstantial view of events: it makes it harder to say that X will always behave like X, because part of what you're observing with X is the effects of Y and Z, and while it's possible to make predictions about the effects of various combinations based on past observation (and we could do a much better job of that, sociologically, economically and politically), you're still necessarily talking about relative rather than absolute relationships)

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Friday, 12 August 2005 07:59 (twenty years ago)

absolutes

wishy-washy relativistic bullshit

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Friday, 12 August 2005 08:51 (twenty years ago)

Sometimes I think our ability to rationalize is a curse.
-- The Milkmaid (of Human Kindness) (handy_mand...), August 11th, 2005.

you believe in curses?

― N_RQ, Friday, 12 August 2005 09:42 (twenty years ago)

Absolutely c/d

― Britain's Jauntiest Shepherd (Alan), Friday, 12 August 2005 09:50 (twenty years ago)

two years pass...

HI DERE!

― The Amazing Randy, Monday, 7 April 2008 08:27 (eighteen years ago)

Scientifically speaking, there are many constants, but very few absolutes. (A temperature of absolute zero is the only one I can think of immediately.) It is somewhat useful to distinguish between these.

― Aimless, Monday, 7 April 2008 18:05 (eighteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.

Absolutes - c/d