The problem with "We need to eat to live a healthy life" is that it opens up all sorts of questions.
What do we need to eat? What is a healthy life? Who are we? etc.
It's not really about relativism it's about asking those questions.
Anyway, way to far from OT.
Re:Accidental Genius: How To Think
by true_religion on Sunday July 24, 2011 @06:44PM
(#2800556)
I think you're taking it for granted that we know we need to eat to live a healthy life.
If this fact were debatable, it would be a different story.
We need to think is as universal as we need to eat is.
We need to eat 3 meats or 5 meals or meat or vegetable are specific manifestation of universal facts that we need to eat.
This book tries to teach what author think can help you in thinking creatively which is an answer to how question.
You may or may not like it and it may or may not be applicable to you.
Re:Accidental Genius: How To Think
by true_religion on Tuesday July 26, 2011 @08:19AM
(#2806984)
I'm sorry, we're not actually talking about the book. This thread is off-topic.
You're taking it too far by saying that no concepts are universally applicable to human beings.
If I made a post saying "We need to eat to live a healthy life", would that not be a universal truth? If it doesn't resonate with some people (e.g. some quibble: "We can puree our food and drink it" or "intravenous injection works for me", and ignore the serious disadvantages of both choices) is the scientific truth of "we need to eat to live a healthy life" not true?
Relativism to an extreme degree is next to nihilism.