Absolute and relative use of words

Painting is absolute in its essence,words are relative and thus an absolute understanding comes only when consensus comes. Words are not descriptive but prescriptive. only through understanding what is good via a consensus do we use was perfectly, absolutely like for example painting. The proof that I understand relative words which are descriptive absolutely is consensus about good and evil way of living. Even though words are relative and descriptive and everyone has a unique concept of anything one may encounter, the mutual consensus if arrived at sincerely is uniqueness of words because what is relative basically turns into non relativity but perfection. Words are universal and absolutely translatable – understood for everyone. There is not an empirical need to understand what is behind words – words that are absolute (showing good/bad way) can be understood via a universal conscience – God´s essence in us. Painting is via words not explicable – only empirically can I understand it – as opposed to words, which are universal and do not need any empirical knowledge. In real life situations, with concrete people I can never judge what is good and what not. I cannot talk about a concrete prostitute and claim that she sins, I can only say that anything against God is bad and what she does with it is her choice. I cannot be sure that she sins, although everything suggests that she does. Only in words I can be sure what is good and what is bad. Prostitution hurts people is absolutely right but I cannot hold it as truthful for concrete people. What damages people is not empirically proven, only via words. Masturbation can be seen as benefitial, for most psychologist even empirically proved, but definitely wrong thing to do – not based on any experience or empirical analysis. I cannot say I feel better now I do not masturbate, those 4 years, but I am sure it is the right thing to do. We can say that empirically for most people money are essential, but can also hurt people. Empirically we can say that socialism is more fair than capitalism but cannot know for sure that it is better for people. This depends on individual conscience, choice. People must choose good under any political system, be it capitalism, socialism or any other. Empirically we can say that under some political system, for example capitalism, people tend to act according to the law of jungle, because capitalism enforces to use strength and devour weaker. Socialism on the other hand does not want to make differences between people. It is not possible though to say which one is better empirically. Words are not here for descriptive purpose – for this we need empirical knowledge – for example seeing a picture cannot be explained via words, only to a certain amount of understanding, not absolutely – for absolute understanding one has to see the picture. Such communication is not absolute as well, because words I use aim at concrete things – when I talk about someones, or someones picture I use words-concepts which are known to the other party – if I used those words with someone not conversant with a certain picture or a person, I would not be able to describe absolutely the person or picture or anything concrete/unique anyway (the person see words concrete entities, not via words explicable concepts). Via words one can explain absolutely only such things which do not need any a priori knowledge – empirical. Words are here for prescriptive purpose – to show what is right from wrong. All that I write here is also adequate for absolute understanding. This text is not absolute in the way of showing a good way of life, but on the other hand, to understand it, one does not need any concrete knowledge. This applies to any text, not any concrete text. It is not descriptive but prescriptive, how to use words to be absolutely understandable, it is not about a certain amount of knowledge. When reading about any research for example, it is always better to be present when researching, because in words the results of any research are only partial, the empirical knowledge is always more precise – absolute. On the other hand, words are absolute only when they do not direct themselves to conrete (empirical) things.


Words and morality

When i exhort,i dont want to sound better than others because maybe they are right and not me. words, as opposed to empirical knowledge are absolute, do not require empirical experiences. we need to understand that only through words can we achieve absolute consensus to the essence of things which is not based on any empirical evidence. empirical evidence does not hint on spiritual things but on things material. Thus it can be said that premarital sex,eg sex for pleasure is bad,but it cannot be applied on concrete people-it cannot be sais that he or she is an adulterer – this depends on individual consicence to accept or not accept universal truth and goods which is presented via words. Words are absolute because they dont touch concrete world,but use concrete words in order to describe transcedent, abstract, moral things, how to be good. When we talk,unless we reach consensus,we need another words to describe words i use. To be honest, i need more words and arguments until one understands it and agrees with me. to be good in any situation. from this premise come all other postulates. The words that are used for descriptive means of world are relative and not absolute. If one uses words not to describe things in the world but to prescribe how things should be then people reach absolute consensus. Brushes of strokes can either copy reality, or can be used as a tool to express someone´s artistic need to express the truth. Words, though relative (or because of that) can be used only as a means to arrive at a mutual absolute consensus, as well as a painting which may be unique but is nevertheless potentially copiable – the truth is not a possesion of someone, but it is an entity that just IS. Same with words, via words one either accepts the truth, or does not. Words as well as painting may be only a copy of reality (not truthful but empirical – to see that something is empirically something we do not need words but must exprience it) or may be used in order to arrive at truth – use the concepts in order to arrive at mutual consensus – here I do not need to expericence entities to which concepts direct – I can understand those concepts via other words. What is only empirically understandable cannot be explained via words but must be experienced. The only proof of an absolute consensus is mutual understanding which is actually necessary to come to a conclusion if something is bad and something good. Always remember to consider an individual action. Its about concrete occurences,one may be wrong about other pereon,its about my view of my actions and actions in general,but never fromcthe point of view of an another person. Truth cannot be found,it is being found. Neverending proces. Nevertheless,words when used as tools for making situations can be understood absokutely-and the hearer either admits the truth or not,for example in oremarital amrriage – it is not possible to say in concerete people that they are either wrong or good, but generally when I talk to someone about this toppic, we arrive at the conclusion that If someone does sleep with his/hers partner before marriage it is because of the “inablity” (not wanting to!!) curb my physiological needs. Tastes should be controled, tastes and needs of my body should not control my mind and sel. Not everything that is allowed (and easy as in case of premarital sex) is allowed. My carrer as a social care worker showed me that everybody has certain sexual drives – some people I work with are not able to eat, drink, use toilet, but all of them have certain sexual drives, thus I conclude that procreatin is possibly the easiest thing in the world and thus one should be very careful about seeing premarital sex as something that should be adored, because it is the easiest thing and things that are easy are not usually good.


Acts in words

Words are the medium,that changes the nature of man. Experience is irrelevant when dealing with words that are meant to improve the condition of morality. Act can be either good or bad-better or worse. Getting better with experience,good example in others and mimicry,getting worse(bad) with choice. There is not better or worse when one is intentionally bad. This can be changed only via words-Explaining why is something bad. How can we learn that something is wrong? I believe that experience nothwithstanding,one always feels what is good(not for him),or easy,or pleasurable,but not good. This does not say that doing good things encompasses displeasure,but it has to be said,that doing good is usually more demanding than doing easy,pleasurable(often bad) things. Experience should not change us,humen should change IT.-world. The transformation of things from bad to good goes from one’s inner,does not come in throught experience,the behaviourist model would count people as learning animals,but the difference in humen and animal is in this spiritual asset(that goes together with another-biological asset-voice box,which distinguishes us physically from other living beings-a proof that words,which are for humans only can change the spiritual asset-soul). In othet words,one does not need experience to know what is good and bad,experience is necessary for improving already good situation.