I havn't disagreed with that. But your "perfect truth" only exists within the subjective rules of your philosophy. By it's own rules it is no more real or perfect than any other truth.
And i thought you didn't like Plato's ideas!
Btw, the logical conclusion of relativist philosophy is insanity. To truely accept the world it describes you would swamped in so much doubt that you would be utterly unable to function.
So unless you are a jibbering wreck in the corner of the room you aint a true relativist ;-) And if you are a jibbering wreck in the corner of the room no-ones gonna listen to you anyway.
Yes but that was not my point. They do so not because it needs to be done but as a diversionary tactic, or somtimes because they prefer to take the microscope to bits than to actualy look through it. Sometimes you just gotta take a look!
The quote is not saying that philosopers should be ignored or that philosphy should be abandoned. But that it is rarely of any use in normal conversation. All the things you have pointed out here are acepted by most people when they actualy talk about football. Most of us as fans know we are biased, we know that all opinion is tinted by perspective. You dont need to define "context" when you chat with friends about a meal you have just eaten. You dont need to point out that opinion is subjective every time someone offers one. We go to the game, chat afterwards, discuss this and that, without needing philosophy to clear everything up. We agree, we agree to differ, if somthing is misunderstood we explain it better.
And you originaly brought in philosophy not because it was needed but because you saw it as an easy way to discount my opinion. You abused your faith! Just maybe you didn't expect me to put up such a good fight?
If you put your head in the sand then you have to take that risk or else remain blind. ;-)
call me traditional... 3651dope man Lots of people agree. Indeed, not caring is becoming quite the thing-to-do amongst leaders of footballing fashion, from what I've heard and read...
"a truth in terms of our discourse" is just as much an illusion as "absolute truth".
The point was that *you* were arguing there is no truth. So if there is no truth then you have no way of saying your philosophy is of more value than anyone elses.
Ok how about this one. You said, (somewhat paraphrased)
"Results are all that matter as they are the only universaly accepted objective fact".
Chelsea messageboard on 25th may 3649nutrimat It defines "normal conversation", and creates the reality about which we converse. That's kinda fundamental. Although, I agree that many people are just happy...
So as your relativist philosophy is not universaly accepted, and as it is not based on objective fact, it doesn't matter. Not one jot! :-)
But only your objective truth matters aparently!
And you are abusing your philosophy again. I'll try and make this easy for you. Did you intentionaly misinterpret the phrase or not?
By their rules, in this case your rules, or do you think lying is a fair way to win a philosphical discusion?
I know you have said that, and i have acknowledged that. But do you admit there is more to the truth of a game than the final result?
I knew there was somthing fishy about you ;-)
