KAISERREICH

Vedulism wrote:

The way that you are proposing is the acceptance of an absolute valuation of things, whereas relativism is the essence of life—proof of which lies in the fact that reality itself is a relative concept.

In other words, if we ask ourselves what is real, we might answer that it is what our five senses perceive; this is where the idea of ​​perception comes into play. For it is only when we accept that many ideas we hold as absolute are actually the result of collective belief—rather than an immutable system—that we learn to see and understand the world in a transcendental light.

Transcendence essentially means positioning relativism as the core of a world in transformation and placing ourselves at the center of that process; yet even this is relative, for there are as many truths in the world as there are individuals in human history.

In conclusion, it is better to use the phrase "maybe" than "definitely," because the former reflects a more realistic view of life than the latter, and that constitutes the ultimate and sole foundation for living without rigid structures.

How aren’t your fingers dead yet!? 😭🥀

Vedulism wrote:

The way that you are proposing is the acceptance of an absolute valuation of things, whereas relativism is the essence of life—proof of which lies in the fact that reality itself is a relative concept.

In other words, if we ask ourselves what is real, we might answer that it is what our five senses perceive; this is where the idea of ​​perception comes into play. For it is only when we accept that many ideas we hold as absolute are actually the result of collective belief—rather than an immutable system—that we learn to see and understand the world in a transcendental light.

Transcendence essentially means positioning relativism as the core of a world in transformation and placing ourselves at the center of that process; yet even this is relative, for there are as many truths in the world as there are individuals in human history.

In conclusion, it is better to use the phrase "maybe" than "definitely," because the former reflects a more realistic view of life than the latter, and that constitutes the ultimate and sole foundation for living without rigid structures.

To absolutely assume that there exists nothing absolute is something absolutely absurd.

On the metaphysical realm, while it is true that what our senses perceive is rather limited and is limited by perception, this largely neglects that the fabric of our reality still must be held by something absolute; after all, relativity, by definition, does not set base rules for existence, and thereby an existence without base rules would be eternally degrading without any solid state, thereby necessitating the existence of certain inalienable truths or facts that condition our reality, not just a concept but something truly tangible.

Concerning the human realm, base truths exist in our nature and philosophy. Take, for example, the act of crying: regardless of connection and distance from one another, in all human societies, crying is a universal demonstration of sadness or despair for a human; is this not evidence of something objective within human nature, something factual and unrelative? This is a development that one holds objectively as true regardless of collective belief or a certain historical moment.

The world only appears relative and fragmented, not because all of these observations are equally true, but because we have not yet come to understand certain truths and realities of our universe; everything looks like a car if you’ve never seen a car. Our efforts thereby are best spent working not as individuals, susceptible to our relative personal biases, but as a collective force seeking to understand the great mysteries and truths of the universe by building on doctrine and previous, smaller truths to begin to truly understand the divine nature of our world, both by theology and science. (For further investigation, I strongly recommend the reading of Saint Tomas Aquinas works on natural law).

On a note, your transcendentalism, with its refusal to acknowledge an objective truth and touting of its own neutrality, falls on the same fallacy as Liberalism on moral neutrality, as stating that you lack a position and that no position is correct is in and of itself a position. Thereby, you’ve made an absolute stance while claiming to be a relativist and anti-absolute.

So, in conclusion, it is HPM Trigori’s right and evident mandate to say so, as it is he who, with his enlightened statement of "definitely", that works to drive us towards understanding the reality structures and foundations of our world.

Vespeck. So, will the Empire participate in N-Day or not?

Scansinia wrote:

we're an empire

not a republic.........its always been that way

Vithara

Vespeck wrote:

If the provincial governors get off their bottoms, then maybe

A major achievement for the Ministry of Entertainment would be if the Empire created its own faction on this N-Day.