A question

Could I get some elaboration on what makes something a relative truth?  I'm a bit skeptical that such truths exist, but not enough to contend outright.  I was thinking you could help sway me one way or the other. 

I know you gave the color example, but colors themselves don't actually exist. 

  So this makes conceptualizing a relative truth difficult because I would like to see it applied to something physical as opposed to an abstraction of the physical.  I'm not saying that I can't use my senses, it's just color is one of those weird things that has different implications

Okay so your proof is to take a picture and then presuppose it's true?  Really Omar?  Really? This big foundation for you logic is a flimsy presupposition? Pictures are not your senses.  I find it dubious that you rely on a camera more than your eyeballs.  

So you think reality is subjective because you can't see the whole cosmos at once?  You realize this does not fit the definition of subjective right?

Nope I don't do presuppositions because they're not illogical.

 That's why I use self evidence.

Self evidence makes way more sense than anything else because it's the only thing stops the infinite regress and give you justification.

Even if you don't think it's true.

Are observers resultants? If so, you're saying something is objective irrespective of resultants/observers, yet you agreed with me.

All opinions are personal.  That's just a word trick.  If I have 3 people with the same opinion then those are 3 personal opinions. Just because you arbitrarily categorized them as being something bigger doesn't change what they are at the fundamental level.  A particle doesn't stop being a particle just because it's inside an atom. The very fact that you have to argue simple definitions like this only goes to further prove my point that your confusing language is impractical. 

Lemme ask you this.  Would you rather spend your debate arguments defining things every two lines or debating?

What specifically about science makes it on the same level as religion?  What are religions standards for testing the truth of something?  Because science has a very strict process.  Religions give you a rulebook and tell you to follow it.  How is that reliable. 

 Furthermore, you missed the point of my contention.  Your standard can make anything true by opinion.  Your standard could literally have people arguing over the color of the sky and by your standard, all of them would be right.  Rape would be right and wrong at the same time.  Gravity would be true and false at the same time. How do you not see a problem with this?

I agree that they're collective, I don't agree that they're independent and I can prove it.  If it's independent that means my opinion can't change it. 

lets say we got 3 people who believe something and then 2 change their mind.  That was just a case of their opinions changing it.  Therefore, it's not independent. 

I agree they're not mutually exclusive.  That doesn't speak to what you're trying to prove.  It's not mutually exclusive in any model that I know of. So this is just the same as all other models. 

Okay and when you explain yourself and your opponent disagrees with your definition, then what happens?  Do you give up and use the popular terms or do you waste time defining? 

Well don't scald me too hard.  You're the one that lumped them into a category.  I'm justified to think you had a reason for doing this.  So prey tell what do they have in common such that they fall into the same group?  I'll let you answer so I'm not putting words in your mouth. 

Sure.  If you say 2 or more people equals objective, then any two people agreeing on something is objective right?   So if me and you agree that unicorns exist that makes it so right? 

it's self evident.

so he still acts as if reality is objective and that's where he differs from you and the reason for this as he said in the video is

"Because our senses are the only tool we have" which makes it necessary and proves the possibility of the contrary, and self evidence, etc. etc. 

Honestly, even if you came back and argued with me as a foundationalist,

One thing you need to understand in epistemology is that philosophers don't care about what definition you bring to the table at all.  They do something called "fleshing the word out"

What does it mean that something doesn't need to be proven? Lets flesh it out.  Well it would mean that it would be so obvious that the act of proving it would be silly right?  If something is obvious wouldn't it be silly to try to prove it?  That's why I said that proving it would be redundant.  As for the impossibility of the contrary.  I kind of took a short cut here and that's my fault so I'll explain.  The impossibility to the contrary is not specifically part of the self evidence definition.  What happened was that historically, self evidence use to only require that it was ridiculously easy to prove, ergo obvious and not needing to be proved.  However, philosophers eventually realized that things that do not exist could slide by this definition, so then it was decided that the impossibility of the contrary was a better standard.  However, anything that meets the impossibility of the contrary standard tends to be self evident because more complicated things generally can't be proved this way.  Does that make more sense?

You were playing the role of the skeptic.  You were suppose to make me budge. 

This is the point where you could have pushed me into the infinite regress if you could show the absurdity of self evidence. 

If you could show an example of self evidence being absurd, then you would have knocked my position down.

The negative of a photo is when the photo is inverted in colors.  That's what would happen if we seen reality consistently wrong.  Reality would look all messed up, but since it's consistent, we could still navigate it.  The thing to notice here is that if we can still navigate it.  Then we can still know things. 

we should assume that we seek knowledge to help us in the world right?

What's more helpful than something that's also practical?

How would you find knowledge without using your senses? 

You could use your thoughts, but what kind of thoughts would you even have without your senses?  I imagine not very many. 

So the key for a foundationalist is to find the justification for you axiom and it can't be a belief. that's why I use self evidence.  Everything self evident is a tautologies, and a tautology isn't really a belief per se, it's like a definitional truth.

So that's why no matter what definition you bring, they're going to define the words in the definition over and over until we figure out exactly what you're actually saying.  This stops people from using word tricks. 

Sure.  "This is a rock" is a self evidence proof because I pointed at it and named it as such.

I was playing the role of the skeptic and I pushed you to a presupposition that you couldn't justify so my skepticism was justified because you couldn't justify your foundation. 

The logic is a proof that comes after you've already verified the logic with self evidence.

So you're still ultimately going from self evidence to the proof but you 're just adding logic as an extra step and getting a similar tree that you would see in coherentism except I have a base. 

you have to show me an example of something that is both obvious and the contrary is impossible that is also not true.  Can you do that? 

If something is consistently wrong it's the same as being right that's the point.

 It doesn't matter if I know whether it's wrong or right because i'll still get the result I want.

If something goes from consistently right to consistently wrong, then we would notice.  If gravity went from working to not working, then we would notice right? 

Okay, we need thoughts for practical reasons.  What's your point? 

A belief is an assumption if it does not have justification.  So it depends on the belief. 

You could assume that you're rational and you might be right, but if you're assuming, then you can't know your right.