I'm not wrong, we agree. I agree women have a preference for status/wealth over looks. But a straight woman wouldn't date a billionaire woman if they acted like a man. You completely ignored that critique.
I can google dating statistics for men based on online dating, and im sure we will find a difference in average matches based solely just off a mans height. Showing women are PHYSICALLY attracted to a mans height. The halo effect exists, a woman will find you more assertive and dominant for being taller, keeping her finding you more interesting to talk too over text all other things equal.
Being wealthy can help you overcome your physical shortcomings as a man (sometimes and up to a limit) but most men cannot become rich its statistically impossible. Which means men must compete on other fronts such as personality and looks, this is the case for the vast majority of men. Not all of us can be economic/social outliers. How many men are so rich to the point their looks don't matter anymore? 0.5% of all men?
would you want to debate the validity of this philosophy, one day? That would be a fun one with bountiful insight. Call me mr impossible, the solver of riddles the riddler couldn't solve.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvZBGJkbeTE
Me with my ultimate swag level.
Fun fact: i can solve a rubix cube in under 15 seconds.
I can observe an apple falling and do mathematical calculations on the weight x the gravity exerted on the apple to figure out the strength of gravity on the apple. It would be an objective fact that the apple moved at the strength x weight of the gravity exerted on it (if I did the maths right). As long as I don't extrapolate this scientific finding to other apples or falling things, I've discovered an objective fact about this said apple and its relationship to gravity. In this same sense, I can confirm it's an objective fact that hawking radiation exists as a real phenomenon in the black holes we observe.
"scientific method rather allows us to hypothesise and make predictions. Such as what time would be like near a black hole."
All knowledge about objective truth is either analytic a priori (a relation of ideas in an analytic manner) or synthetic a posteriori (observed matter of fact, such as ‘this apple is red’)
I dont think i understand. Me looking through a telescope and seeing a star would fulfill the criteria of synthetic a posterori (observed matter of fact), would it not?
I see, well good luck. I'm unsure how you can copy someone else's entire writing style, i personally don't think i can do that.
I've learnt how nitpicky I find debates like these. "Science is not objective because it's based on induction." It only takes us to study one black hole to know black holes exist. Regardless of whether others exist or not, Science lets us know that it is an objective fact that at least one black hole exists through the observation of one. It really just depends on how nitpicky we want to be.
We'll see about that. Make your argument and we will see. I imagine i wont even disagree with you, we will agree and ill simply build upon it. I would agree beauty and sex aren't necessarily related. We will see if that detracts from me in any-way though.
Thats so bullshit i dont know where to begin. Yes, women put more pressure on social status and wealth as opposed to men but women do have physical preferences too, or all of them would be bisexual. Or would women be attracted to other women if they acted like a man? please.
I too could do the exact same. It proves nothing, we need statistical data for this. A dog is more likely to defend you from a physical threat than a cat, i don't care what you say. You would need data to change my personal experience.
Cats definitely are less likely to help a human than a dog. There's a reason we hunted with dogs and not cats. No one has a "guard cat". Dogs are also smarter. Get him zing!
Bones is a great debater, but he wont debate me, WHYYYYY it hurts my heart whiteflame it hurts my heart. No one could beat me in an anime music battle though, my taste is impeccable. My defence impregnable, my attack ferocious.
I think I'm not even going to make an argument in this debate. I think it's a bit unfair. The debate is too easy. I'm not sure what I was expecting, the senses clearly have limitations.
Bones has never gone out of his comfort zone. he's definitely a good debater, but he likely drops off a lot on topics he's not very familiar with (hence why he doesn't take them), at least that's my assumption. I think he would lose quite a few debates if he debated beyond abortion and gender studies. I've been begging him for debates beyond these subjects, but he just won't bite the fish. Oromagi just debates the most weird shit.
Bones has only never lost a debate because he's exceptionally picky about what he chooses to debate. Not to mention, half of his wins come from his opposition failing to show up.
If we agree on time, and that we can have something physical outside of us which acts different to us all differently (depending on both our physiology and location). I'm unsure why you keep saying this weird Quanta argument with overly complex jargon. If Science has admitted we can come to facts on physical things existing outside of us while them being both subjective to a perceivers phenonemelogical experience and it being a physical reality. You're still yet to prove your argument.
I'm not sure where Stephen Hawkins said we should value hawking radiation. It was simply an observation. What we do with that knowledge (applied science) is different from theoretical science (observational science). If he subconsciously believed we should value his discovery to worship him or what not, that still doesn't deny (from a non-applied science stance) his discovery wasn't objectively correct assuming materialism. Hence, you kind of have to assume solipsism in your argument.
I'm not going to debate it with you in the comment section, im going to have an actual debate on the subject (hopefully). If it comes up, you will find an answer too it.
It doesn't matter what "personal" god i choose to tell you, as you will find some argument against it and i can simply switch to another concept of god (among the infinite). Its a never ending circle, and i doubt you can factor all of them out to the point of showing all of them certainly don't exist and would have no effect on morality if they did.
When people describe an intelligent god they generally mean a self aware conscious creator. We will go with that definition of intelligence. From looking at material reality, irrespective of human concepts of god, can you completely rule out through looking at the universe that there was no intelligent design?
The fact–value distinction is a fundamental epistemological distinction described between:[1]
'Statements of fact' ('positive' or 'descriptive statements'), based upon reason and physical observation, and which are examined via the empirical method.
'Statements of value' ('normative' or 'prescriptive statements'), which encompass ethics and aesthetics, and are studied via axiology.
Regardless if I value an apple or what i think or percieve it to be (assuming materialism) it exists even if I don't. I'm unsure why you're not getting that.
"einstein made it exceedingly clear that time is ALWAYS relative to the observer
there is no "universal clock""
Time is inseperateable from the fabric of space. Meaning it is a physical property, but acts on different perceivers differently through their own perception. Hence, both objective (real outside my mind) but subjective on each person.
Can you answer the time question? what we do with objective facts (such as 1 plus 1 equals 2) what i choose to do with these facts has nothing to do with whether or not they are facts. This isn't a moral objectivity debate, I'm unsure why i have to bridge any is-ought gap in this discussion.
you still have yet to prove why something cannot be objective through a subjective perceiver. Science blatantly disagrees with you here. I've already said you've made of leap of logic and you're yet to explain why it isn't. You just keep saying the same thing over and over, which I've already admitted is true but I don't find too relevant.
Time is subjective but objective at the same time, is it not?
Materialism posits that matter creates the mind, hence when the mind ceases matter doesnt. That means regardless if you can see the oranges, grab, peel them etc. They exist. Your idea is predicated on the idea that this is wholly incorrect or we miss percieve so much to the point where doing maths on the outside world is also...incorrect.
Why is the way you feel about things the only thing that matters? I personally hate the number 666, does the number 666 now not equate to 666 separate pieces/parts of something?
Regardless of my motive for calculating mathematical equations, irrespective of how hard i press the chalk on the board or beg for a different answer, my answer will remain the same if im doing the maths correctly.
Your personal experience or contact with something can be coloured by your subjective consciousness whilst it remaining an objective fact it exists outside of you. Time is the perfect example to this. If I have 2 oranges and take away 1 am i not objectively left with 1 orange?
Another example would be the way i view a lion is my own personal interpretation. yet assuming materialism a lion definitely exists regardless of how I choose to perceive it, or how it makes me feel or the impressions it gives me. Unless you want to go full blown solipsist, if you choose to go down that route you shouldn't fear a lion, as even if you die your mind shouldn't. All solipsists are hypocrites, they say one thing then do another.
This is why your philosophy is predicated on the idea of assuming either the senses wholly incorrect and incoherent or that reality doesn't actually exist.
All of what you said is true, but I'm unsure why it debunks anything i claimed. Simply saying qualia is personal and emotionally meaningful doesn't mean you've now proven just from that you cannot come to objective facts of the outside world. There's a unjustified leap of logic there. Time is subjective to me, does time not exist outside of me? your idea is predicated on the idea (once more) that we cannot accurately assess the outside world due to our own subjective perceptions. I brought up the point of WHICH perceptions are subjective?
The definition you use is a very philosophical one and not used in general lexicon. Its a very philosophical tern coined from materialism vs idealism, and has literal basis in a general discussion on what constitutes "objectivity" in everyday use. We assume the outside world exists when we do science, and once we assume such a thing there's little reason to assume we interpret it wrongly wholly wrongly (outside of things we know are illusions created by the brain, such as colours).
That definition is never used in eveyday life outside of descartes meditations and emmanuel kants critique of pure reason.
This essentially just became an argument for solipsism. You just picked a (debateable) definition which says that things that happen in the mind are subjective with no elaboration or proof as to why. Your argument is based on the premise that our experience of reality is not in alignment with what reality actually looks like, making our observations incorrect. How else could our experience be subjective if not for the fact that we misread or miss-experience the real reality? What's subjective? What colours we see? Whether or not matter exists? assuming materialism, matter objectively exists (the hadron collider proves it). You would have to prove materialism incorrect, or that our senses misread the outside world to a massively skewing degree for this to be fully fleshed out in my eyes.
In my last argument, I meant to say that there was no proof that we should ban animal testing on the grounds of its being immoral! I intended to say that It should be based on what financially works the best and is the most successful. This is the conclusion I reached after seeing that you couldn't refute my arguments for the lack of immorality in animal testing.
I'm unsure why people need to have a "personal" god to debunk. We can look at material reality from a stance where we don't involve feelings and personal beliefs with facts of reality. In this discussion god simply means a creator. So looking at reality, can you prove with certainty there was no intelligent design at play in our universe? I talk of no specific religion, lets just look at the facts of the universe. Can you prove its all by chance or without intent?
Why? The spectrums of energy our physical senses can interact with are exceptionally slim compared to what we know is out there....... That's not even considering what we don't know, which will almost certainly be much more.
In theory, God could exist as a form of energy like me and you. After all, we know energy can create consciousness, we're evidence of it. He could simply just exist as energy in a completely different vibrational spectrum, hence why he's invisible and undetectable.
I'm copy and pasting this comment from a previous debate section. Our thinking is extremely biased by your culture and upbringing. This is why we need data, and evidence. We live in a small section of the globe, naturally we may experience statistical outliers. Only when you look at the grand scheme of things and take a wider glance from a wider view will you see the full picture. Do you have the full picture of everything necessary for gods certain disapproval?
If we cannot even find who is worse drivers from our own thinking and observation. Why would we be able to with morality? which is going to be of far more breadth than who is a good driver or not.
Not at all. Do you know if God exists? or is he not a variable at all in objective morality? Those who think they can put an estimate on the variable of Gods existence simply fall for intellectual pride. No one can put an estimate on God existing or not existing. The whole moral realism vs. moral relativism has a lot of assumptionary baggage.
Humans come with all sorts of personal bias's such as the fact most people have the stereotype women are worse drivers, but a quick google search disproves this commonly held belief, men are more likely to be in car crashes (this is why insurance costs more for men). Humans live in our own small worlds, where we're only in contact with a tiny spectrum of just our planet alone, never mind the entire universe or what is potentially beyond. If we cannot find all the variables in intelligence, why are you so sure we have them with morality?
People being so sure morality is subjective is like people believing black people have lower IQ's because of genes. We just don't know, there's not even enough evidence to currently even put an estimate on how genetic the IQ gap is. That's why the experts don't put an estimate, as its simply not possible with the current information. Do you know all the variables when it comes to morality?
There's too many variables at play for you to assert that. You'll see when i have my debate why its false. I'll directly respond to that comment in my debate.
Would you say that what is good for a cow to eat is also good for you? Something can be a relative truth. To use an example, its true time is both relative and objective at the same time. Almost every philosophical discipline starts with two polar opposites, such as empiricism and rationalism (Kant bridged the gap). Then there's idealism and materialism (the answer once more is likely a mix of them both, dependant arising). The same happened with time, and I'll show the same is the case with objective and subjective morality. Hegel calls this the dialectic method, where we synthesize two different ideas to find the truth.
I'm not going to talk about it here though, I'm planning to debate it after-all.
I'm not wrong, we agree. I agree women have a preference for status/wealth over looks. But a straight woman wouldn't date a billionaire woman if they acted like a man. You completely ignored that critique.
I can google dating statistics for men based on online dating, and im sure we will find a difference in average matches based solely just off a mans height. Showing women are PHYSICALLY attracted to a mans height. The halo effect exists, a woman will find you more assertive and dominant for being taller, keeping her finding you more interesting to talk too over text all other things equal.
Being wealthy can help you overcome your physical shortcomings as a man (sometimes and up to a limit) but most men cannot become rich its statistically impossible. Which means men must compete on other fronts such as personality and looks, this is the case for the vast majority of men. Not all of us can be economic/social outliers. How many men are so rich to the point their looks don't matter anymore? 0.5% of all men?
What must be done must be done.
If i put you in a straitjacket against your will after sedating you with horse tranquilisers. Was that not against your will? but you're right.
You will always be the second most handsome on the site RM, always one step behind my good looks.
"Munchhausen trilemma"
would you want to debate the validity of this philosophy, one day? That would be a fun one with bountiful insight. Call me mr impossible, the solver of riddles the riddler couldn't solve.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvZBGJkbeTE
Me with my ultimate swag level.
Fun fact: i can solve a rubix cube in under 15 seconds.
I can observe an apple falling and do mathematical calculations on the weight x the gravity exerted on the apple to figure out the strength of gravity on the apple. It would be an objective fact that the apple moved at the strength x weight of the gravity exerted on it (if I did the maths right). As long as I don't extrapolate this scientific finding to other apples or falling things, I've discovered an objective fact about this said apple and its relationship to gravity. In this same sense, I can confirm it's an objective fact that hawking radiation exists as a real phenomenon in the black holes we observe.
I don't know what you should debate bones! follow your heart.
"scientific method rather allows us to hypothesise and make predictions. Such as what time would be like near a black hole."
All knowledge about objective truth is either analytic a priori (a relation of ideas in an analytic manner) or synthetic a posteriori (observed matter of fact, such as ‘this apple is red’)
I dont think i understand. Me looking through a telescope and seeing a star would fulfill the criteria of synthetic a posterori (observed matter of fact), would it not?
I see, well good luck. I'm unsure how you can copy someone else's entire writing style, i personally don't think i can do that.
I've learnt how nitpicky I find debates like these. "Science is not objective because it's based on induction." It only takes us to study one black hole to know black holes exist. Regardless of whether others exist or not, Science lets us know that it is an objective fact that at least one black hole exists through the observation of one. It really just depends on how nitpicky we want to be.
What do you plan debating bones on?
definetly bones on an alt account. Your writing style, structure, everything is the exact same.
We live in a society. We shall never enslave our aussie m8's bones, that was too far! Who else would be able to vs. new Zealand in the rugby?
I'm jon jones, you're lyoto machida with your wingchun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qRJHxhx-sg
You're choking. 2 hours and still no argument produced, you're bamboozled and discombulated.
We'll see about that. Make your argument and we will see. I imagine i wont even disagree with you, we will agree and ill simply build upon it. I would agree beauty and sex aren't necessarily related. We will see if that detracts from me in any-way though.
Thats so bullshit i dont know where to begin. Yes, women put more pressure on social status and wealth as opposed to men but women do have physical preferences too, or all of them would be bisexual. Or would women be attracted to other women if they acted like a man? please.
I too could do the exact same. It proves nothing, we need statistical data for this. A dog is more likely to defend you from a physical threat than a cat, i don't care what you say. You would need data to change my personal experience.
I need to make sure i get my titles and descriptions correct from now on as to not get caught half way through editing them!
Cats definitely are less likely to help a human than a dog. There's a reason we hunted with dogs and not cats. No one has a "guard cat". Dogs are also smarter. Get him zing!
Bones is a great debater, but he wont debate me, WHYYYYY it hurts my heart whiteflame it hurts my heart. No one could beat me in an anime music battle though, my taste is impeccable. My defence impregnable, my attack ferocious.
I think I'm not even going to make an argument in this debate. I think it's a bit unfair. The debate is too easy. I'm not sure what I was expecting, the senses clearly have limitations.
Bones has never gone out of his comfort zone. he's definitely a good debater, but he likely drops off a lot on topics he's not very familiar with (hence why he doesn't take them), at least that's my assumption. I think he would lose quite a few debates if he debated beyond abortion and gender studies. I've been begging him for debates beyond these subjects, but he just won't bite the fish. Oromagi just debates the most weird shit.
lmfao
Bones has only never lost a debate because he's exceptionally picky about what he chooses to debate. Not to mention, half of his wins come from his opposition failing to show up.
Pretty strong argument! good job.
Good luck. Although i don't agree with your pedophilia stance, veganism is always respectable in my eyes.
You're yet to prove how our senses are either
1. misperceiving reality
2. reality doesn't exist
If we agree on time, and that we can have something physical outside of us which acts different to us all differently (depending on both our physiology and location). I'm unsure why you keep saying this weird Quanta argument with overly complex jargon. If Science has admitted we can come to facts on physical things existing outside of us while them being both subjective to a perceivers phenonemelogical experience and it being a physical reality. You're still yet to prove your argument.
I'm not sure where Stephen Hawkins said we should value hawking radiation. It was simply an observation. What we do with that knowledge (applied science) is different from theoretical science (observational science). If he subconsciously believed we should value his discovery to worship him or what not, that still doesn't deny (from a non-applied science stance) his discovery wasn't objectively correct assuming materialism. Hence, you kind of have to assume solipsism in your argument.
Dogs are definitely better than cats.
I feel like there's something fishy about this debate. It seems too good to be true. Looks like a free win, so free to the point something is up.
I'm not going to debate it with you in the comment section, im going to have an actual debate on the subject (hopefully). If it comes up, you will find an answer too it.
It doesn't matter what "personal" god i choose to tell you, as you will find some argument against it and i can simply switch to another concept of god (among the infinite). Its a never ending circle, and i doubt you can factor all of them out to the point of showing all of them certainly don't exist and would have no effect on morality if they did.
When people describe an intelligent god they generally mean a self aware conscious creator. We will go with that definition of intelligence. From looking at material reality, irrespective of human concepts of god, can you completely rule out through looking at the universe that there was no intelligent design?
The fact–value distinction is a fundamental epistemological distinction described between:[1]
'Statements of fact' ('positive' or 'descriptive statements'), based upon reason and physical observation, and which are examined via the empirical method.
'Statements of value' ('normative' or 'prescriptive statements'), which encompass ethics and aesthetics, and are studied via axiology.
Regardless if I value an apple or what i think or percieve it to be (assuming materialism) it exists even if I don't. I'm unsure why you're not getting that.
"einstein made it exceedingly clear that time is ALWAYS relative to the observer
there is no "universal clock""
Time is inseperateable from the fabric of space. Meaning it is a physical property, but acts on different perceivers differently through their own perception. Hence, both objective (real outside my mind) but subjective on each person.
Can you answer the time question? what we do with objective facts (such as 1 plus 1 equals 2) what i choose to do with these facts has nothing to do with whether or not they are facts. This isn't a moral objectivity debate, I'm unsure why i have to bridge any is-ought gap in this discussion.
you still have yet to prove why something cannot be objective through a subjective perceiver. Science blatantly disagrees with you here. I've already said you've made of leap of logic and you're yet to explain why it isn't. You just keep saying the same thing over and over, which I've already admitted is true but I don't find too relevant.
Time is subjective but objective at the same time, is it not?
Materialism posits that matter creates the mind, hence when the mind ceases matter doesnt. That means regardless if you can see the oranges, grab, peel them etc. They exist. Your idea is predicated on the idea that this is wholly incorrect or we miss percieve so much to the point where doing maths on the outside world is also...incorrect.
Why is the way you feel about things the only thing that matters? I personally hate the number 666, does the number 666 now not equate to 666 separate pieces/parts of something?
Regardless of my motive for calculating mathematical equations, irrespective of how hard i press the chalk on the board or beg for a different answer, my answer will remain the same if im doing the maths correctly.
Your personal experience or contact with something can be coloured by your subjective consciousness whilst it remaining an objective fact it exists outside of you. Time is the perfect example to this. If I have 2 oranges and take away 1 am i not objectively left with 1 orange?
Another example would be the way i view a lion is my own personal interpretation. yet assuming materialism a lion definitely exists regardless of how I choose to perceive it, or how it makes me feel or the impressions it gives me. Unless you want to go full blown solipsist, if you choose to go down that route you shouldn't fear a lion, as even if you die your mind shouldn't. All solipsists are hypocrites, they say one thing then do another.
This is why your philosophy is predicated on the idea of assuming either the senses wholly incorrect and incoherent or that reality doesn't actually exist.
All of what you said is true, but I'm unsure why it debunks anything i claimed. Simply saying qualia is personal and emotionally meaningful doesn't mean you've now proven just from that you cannot come to objective facts of the outside world. There's a unjustified leap of logic there. Time is subjective to me, does time not exist outside of me? your idea is predicated on the idea (once more) that we cannot accurately assess the outside world due to our own subjective perceptions. I brought up the point of WHICH perceptions are subjective?
The definition you use is a very philosophical one and not used in general lexicon. Its a very philosophical tern coined from materialism vs idealism, and has literal basis in a general discussion on what constitutes "objectivity" in everyday use. We assume the outside world exists when we do science, and once we assume such a thing there's little reason to assume we interpret it wrongly wholly wrongly (outside of things we know are illusions created by the brain, such as colours).
That definition is never used in eveyday life outside of descartes meditations and emmanuel kants critique of pure reason.
This essentially just became an argument for solipsism. You just picked a (debateable) definition which says that things that happen in the mind are subjective with no elaboration or proof as to why. Your argument is based on the premise that our experience of reality is not in alignment with what reality actually looks like, making our observations incorrect. How else could our experience be subjective if not for the fact that we misread or miss-experience the real reality? What's subjective? What colours we see? Whether or not matter exists? assuming materialism, matter objectively exists (the hadron collider proves it). You would have to prove materialism incorrect, or that our senses misread the outside world to a massively skewing degree for this to be fully fleshed out in my eyes.
In my last argument, I meant to say that there was no proof that we should ban animal testing on the grounds of its being immoral! I intended to say that It should be based on what financially works the best and is the most successful. This is the conclusion I reached after seeing that you couldn't refute my arguments for the lack of immorality in animal testing.
https://www.bio-itworld.com/news/2019/11/20/will-organ-on-a-chip-models-be-viable-alternatives-to-animal-testing
Sorry zing! I'll make sure to use your proper pronouns from now on. I'm 19 (if it was me whose age you were asking about).
I said intelligent design. Its very easy to say there was no intelligence in the creation of the big bang.
I'm unsure why people need to have a "personal" god to debunk. We can look at material reality from a stance where we don't involve feelings and personal beliefs with facts of reality. In this discussion god simply means a creator. So looking at reality, can you prove with certainty there was no intelligent design at play in our universe? I talk of no specific religion, lets just look at the facts of the universe. Can you prove its all by chance or without intent?
Why? The spectrums of energy our physical senses can interact with are exceptionally slim compared to what we know is out there....... That's not even considering what we don't know, which will almost certainly be much more.
In theory, God could exist as a form of energy like me and you. After all, we know energy can create consciousness, we're evidence of it. He could simply just exist as energy in a completely different vibrational spectrum, hence why he's invisible and undetectable.
I'm copy and pasting this comment from a previous debate section. Our thinking is extremely biased by your culture and upbringing. This is why we need data, and evidence. We live in a small section of the globe, naturally we may experience statistical outliers. Only when you look at the grand scheme of things and take a wider glance from a wider view will you see the full picture. Do you have the full picture of everything necessary for gods certain disapproval?
If we cannot even find who is worse drivers from our own thinking and observation. Why would we be able to with morality? which is going to be of far more breadth than who is a good driver or not.
Not at all. Do you know if God exists? or is he not a variable at all in objective morality? Those who think they can put an estimate on the variable of Gods existence simply fall for intellectual pride. No one can put an estimate on God existing or not existing. The whole moral realism vs. moral relativism has a lot of assumptionary baggage.
Humans come with all sorts of personal bias's such as the fact most people have the stereotype women are worse drivers, but a quick google search disproves this commonly held belief, men are more likely to be in car crashes (this is why insurance costs more for men). Humans live in our own small worlds, where we're only in contact with a tiny spectrum of just our planet alone, never mind the entire universe or what is potentially beyond. If we cannot find all the variables in intelligence, why are you so sure we have them with morality?
People being so sure morality is subjective is like people believing black people have lower IQ's because of genes. We just don't know, there's not even enough evidence to currently even put an estimate on how genetic the IQ gap is. That's why the experts don't put an estimate, as its simply not possible with the current information. Do you know all the variables when it comes to morality?
There's too many variables at play for you to assert that. You'll see when i have my debate why its false. I'll directly respond to that comment in my debate.
Would you say that what is good for a cow to eat is also good for you? Something can be a relative truth. To use an example, its true time is both relative and objective at the same time. Almost every philosophical discipline starts with two polar opposites, such as empiricism and rationalism (Kant bridged the gap). Then there's idealism and materialism (the answer once more is likely a mix of them both, dependant arising). The same happened with time, and I'll show the same is the case with objective and subjective morality. Hegel calls this the dialectic method, where we synthesize two different ideas to find the truth.
I'm not going to talk about it here though, I'm planning to debate it after-all.
He probably wouldn't agree to double homicide.