Amazon.com Widgets

Only posts tagged with: Absolute Truth | Display all

Katie van Schaijik

Roger Kimball is relatively correct, but not absolutely so

Sep. 24, 2012, at 11:03am

A chance to quibble with Roger Kimball doesn't come along every day of the week, so I'm going to grab it while I can. I found it on p.7 of his new book, The Fortunes of Permanence: Culture and Anarchy in the Age of Amnesia. This paragraph:

What a relativist really believes (or believes he believes) is that 1) there is no such thing as value (as distinct from mere preference) and 2) there is no such thing as truth. The word "absolute" is merely an emollient, a verbal sedative intended to forestall unhappiness. What after all is the difference between saying "There is no such thing as absolute truth" and saying "There is no such thing as truth"? Take your time.

I get what he means and I

continue reading

Stay informed

Latest comments

  • Re: Is all confusion evil? A Socratic thought.
  • By: Jules van Schaijik
  • Re: Is all confusion evil? A Socratic thought.
  • By: Katie van Schaijik
  • Re: Merry Christmas, You Miserable Pagan!
  • By: Devra Torres
  • Re: Merry Christmas, You Miserable Pagan!
  • By: Gary Gibson
  • Re: Factions
  • By: Katie van Schaijik
  • Re: Personalism and the Judeo-Christian tradition
  • By: Katie van Schaijik
  • Re: Too Much, Too Little, Too Late
  • By: Peter
  • Re: Too Much, Too Little, Too Late
  • By: Peter
  • Re: Too Much, Too Little, Too Late
  • By: Peter
  • Re: Too Much, Too Little, Too Late
  • By: Peter

Latest active posts

Reading circles

Lectures