There is absolute truth

Don’t sweat the technique In this in this debate I am using what the Fool calls the Bar-B-Q method, where the Debate is the meat to be cooked. And so we just throw that Sh!t up on the grill, at the hill. And a lot of that Fat just melts of the coal. Whatever didn’t’ melt off will be nice and soft, to slice the off with the Fool’s Blade. That is since the BOP is on me I am just doing my own cooking. Can you smell what The Fool is cooking! <(8P) http://youtu.be... Okay cut the Music!!! Its going to get complicated! No Way Out. My partner needs to demonstrate with reasonable argumentation that our experience is not our absolute experience. Maybe it’s someone else’s? lol Or its not absolutely itself. In fact you may agree with him that you are not absolutely what you are, for that according to Larze that is non sequitur. That is to say you have no relation to yourself. <(XD) Or God if he exist is not absolutely God, that he is rather something else then his self. Any claim he makes even to say that there is no absolute truth or that there must be grounding, or that there is distinction, or that there truth is binary depends ON AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH. There really is NO WAY OUT. (And that has nothing to with wresting. Unless we are talking, sexy women.) Parmenides is the man! Parmenides: What is is, and that what is not is not learnable. The Fool: Of course it doesn’t’ exist to even speak about. For I may use the symbol such as A=A to symbolize a thing in itself, is a thing in itself. What I am really getting at is simply A Do you get the hint, for any language I use I will need a symbol to show A “is” A. in this form it’s the Copula, “is”. (Copula is a philosophic jargon for the idea of “is”) It’s an atomic truth pre-verification/correspondence. Parmenides: How could it have come to be? For if it came into being, it is not; nor is it if ever it is going to be. Thus coming into being is extinguished, and destruction unknown' (Parmenides of Elea 500 BCE) The Fool: Exactly because existence, exist! And that’s absolute. Parmenides: and that straight from 500 Elea! The Fool: <(8D) (gives Parmenides a high five) Verification is a correspondence theory of truth. I started off this debate by stating all philosophy is not philosophy. And what I meant is that the world philosophy has become a “whore”. In that the term is used for so many disciplines which are not the same at all, to the point where the term philosophy has not more credibility, because to many disciplines what are difference bear and sometimes hide under the title. You see the Positivists are what I consider the last true philosophers, in the sense that they were trying to keep in line with the original purpose of philosophy which was the quest for wisdom. (Wisdom as accumulated knowledge) The positivist noticed thatthere is large difference between critical philosophies that were based on rational/logical arguments. And many of those disciplines called philosophy were rather that of opinion. Despite that the original purpose of philosophy was to demarcate the difference of opinion and knowledge in the first place. In attempt to demarcate the correct way to knowledge, the positivists, made there criteria for knowledge way to high. They came to the conclusion that only physical verification aka physical correspondence is true. They LABELLED the mind as idea as non-existent. So they it isn't true or false either. They can’t MAKE the mind non-existence. I repeat They LABELLED THE MIND NON-EXISTENT. (Did I say labelled?) But by Labelling the mind, non-existent, they had not justification for their correspondence theory of verification. Why because KNOWLEDGE is in the Form of IDEAS, as for a proof method/logic. But the mind absolutely exists, for all experiences are in a frame work of mind. Because their criteria for knowledge why so high that it was self-defeating. And this is when the strongly opinionated and subjectivist philosophies took over. And YOU my Audience are the generation which is made up of the mix between these strong positivist notion of verificaitonism and the ungrounded non-absolutist ideas of subjectivist/ opinionated style philosophies. For many of our ideas have transcended from these very influential but yet apposing types of philosophy. That is why we are confused about grounding, Knowledge and Truth and the Absolute. Its because of these sh!tty ideas. That is part of the quest for knowledge is via studying the trancedence of ideas. When the going gets tough, the gruff gets going For it is most virtuous in philosophy to change your views upon reasonable refutation and or upon new information. That is the way of the original philosophic dialectic. The highest honour, is to concede if you really understand the knew knowledge. It would be your start nne a fresh path. Of course I am talking Kool and the gang Fresh. I think the Food I cooked is ready to eat. It looks to good it will make you drool. VOTE FOOL!!!