>>2. Do you think it correct to make the trial of proving relativism of truth?
>>Do you think it neccessary and why so?
>Well, I think the problem is on the other side--it is _absolute_ truths that
>can't be proven. The only "truths" we have are _relational_ truths (note, I
>don't think this is necessarily the same thing as "relative" truth).
>>
could you explain this last subtlety, Steve
btw i agree with your statement about absolute truths, already in the second
century ad skeptics like Sextus Empircus and Nagarjuna (the latter in India),
have made it very clear that language and thought are not capable of absolute
truth
-erik
--- from list nietzsche@lists.village.virginia.edu ---