On the other hand, the universality of cause and effect is only relative, not absolute, because wherever it is (universally)
RELATIVELY ADAPTABLE
So something is relative, which does not mean that it is doubtful whether it is right or wrong, but that something is relative, which means you need to be aware of how to adapt to it which is relative
RELATIVE DIVERSITY
That’s why relative does not mean there are no limits, but rather its flexibility emphasizes the diversity of possibilities that are still within limits
LIMIT OF RELATIVE
This also means that there is a relative range of how far the relative cannot exceed a certain limit. And a certain limit that cannot be exceeded by pure possibility
ABSOLUTE AS A FOUNDATION OF RELATIVE
It also means that because the absolute is the furthest limit to relative possibilities, the absolute becomes the basis for the relative.
THE FOUNDATION OF ABSOLUTE
Then how to understand absolutes rationally? Absoluteness is rationally realized in “logical consequences”. Why? Because of the sequence in consequences
SCIENTIFIC—EMPIRICAL
Empirical evidence involves causal observations or attempts to find causal relationships.
SCIENTIFIC LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES
Because logical consequences underlie the cause-effect relationship so that if a logical consequence is realized, then without observation it is already knowledge
METAPHYSICS
When a logical consequence is felt to be strange, or seems metaphysical beyond reason, it is actually not beyond reason, but they think it needs observation because they think it is still in the realm of cause-and-effect that requires observation. This is because generally they cannot distinguish between the cause-and-effect underlying empiricism and the logical consequences underlying cause-and-effect.
Scientists and philosophers generally cannot distinguish between cause-and-effect and logical consequences.
PPOPER PHILOSOPHIZING
That is the need for rational and objective philosophy based on logical consequences. It’s just that they generally find it difficult to distinguish the boundaries that are considered blurry between cause and effect and consequence
If one is able to philosophize rationally and objectively, it is akin to positioning philosophy on par with physics and mathematics. Where physics and mathematics have modular formulas that can be synchronized among physicists and mathematicians.
Then philosophy, with its many logical consequence formulas, is also able to synergize scientifically (and even surpass) with physicists and mathematicians.
METAPHILOSOPHY—A Philosophizing through logical consequences
CAUSALITY & LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES
Cause and effect are not universal, but relative.
On the other hand, the universality of cause and effect is only relative, not absolute, because wherever it is (universally)
RELATIVELY ADAPTABLE
So something is relative, which does not mean that it is doubtful whether it is right or wrong, but that something is relative, which means you need to be aware of how to adapt to it which is relative
RELATIVE DIVERSITY
That’s why relative does not mean there are no limits, but rather its flexibility emphasizes the diversity of possibilities that are still within limits
LIMIT OF RELATIVE
This also means that there is a relative range of how far the relative cannot exceed a certain limit. And a certain limit that cannot be exceeded by pure possibility
ABSOLUTE AS A FOUNDATION OF RELATIVE
It also means that because the absolute is the furthest limit to relative possibilities, the absolute becomes the basis for the relative.
THE FOUNDATION OF ABSOLUTE
Then how to understand absolutes rationally? Absoluteness is rationally realized in “logical consequences”. Why? Because of the sequence in consequences
SCIENTIFIC—EMPIRICAL
Empirical evidence involves causal observations or attempts to find causal relationships.
SCIENTIFIC LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES
Because logical consequences underlie the cause-effect relationship so that if a logical consequence is realized, then without observation it is already knowledge
METAPHYSICS
When a logical consequence is felt to be strange, or seems metaphysical beyond reason, it is actually not beyond reason, but they think it needs observation because they think it is still in the realm of cause-and-effect that requires observation. This is because generally they cannot distinguish between the cause-and-effect underlying empiricism and the logical consequences underlying cause-and-effect.
Scientists and philosophers generally cannot distinguish between cause-and-effect and logical consequences.
PPOPER PHILOSOPHIZING
That is the need for rational and objective philosophy based on logical consequences. It’s just that they generally find it difficult to distinguish the boundaries that are considered blurry between cause and effect and consequence
PHILOSOPHICAL EQUALITY—With Expert Scientists (Physics & Mathematics)
If one is able to philosophize rationally and objectively, it is akin to positioning philosophy on par with physics and mathematics. Where physics and mathematics have modular formulas that can be synchronized among physicists and mathematicians.
Then philosophy, with its many logical consequence formulas, is also able to synergize scientifically (and even surpass) with physicists and mathematicians.