YuHeng's blog

All arguments take an ontological assumption, such as that of realism or relativism. The realist clams that there is an objective, physical world that is independent of our knowledge, perception, and values; a picture. We must, then form or align our picture with that of the real world. But doing so requires a series of accordance, revisions, etc. The elements of the fundamental building blocks. The relativist, however, claims that our knowledge of the world is shaped by our perception, values, historical or political contexts among others. To reconcile the two ontological assumptions is hard, almost impossible, since one says that there exists a world outside of my own, and the other posits that there is no such thing, that my understanding of the world is one of many others, that an infinite world may exist, that even my understanding of the world a second ago is different than my understanding of it now. The relativist, then claims that the world is constantly moving, always in flux… they are Hegelian??? The synthesis and antithesis of our understanding via contradictions or negativity? But the totality… the Absolute world spirit is not considered. Do I believe in constant progression or a progression towards an end. A means for an end. The absolute happiness? An end that no other end can act as means to reach this end. An end in itself. A meaning, purpose, rather than spontaneity? I find myself balanced on the tight wire between Plato and the relativists–the modern mind… just visit youtube and tictok. The cultural discourse puts us to shame…