eucsgmrc wrote:
Well, very few absolutes are really so absolute that they can't be qualified. For instance:
A is the tallest man in the world since records began. He's clearly unique.
B is the tallest woman in the world since records began. She's also the only person ever to win a Nobel prize, an Olympic gold medal and the national lottery in the same year. She's clearly more unique than A.
Oh no she's not.
Oh yes she is. It takes only one man to grow very tall to displace A from his uniqueness, but B would still be unique even if another woman were to grow very tall.
My immediate reaction was to check the definition of 'unique' and it seems to be time related. The man is unique as at the moment that he is so described.
The woman is unique in two different contexts - height and separately winning those specified prizes within the allotted time period. Again, each is unique as at the moment the word 'unique' is used. It is not a lasting condition. Ergo each is an absolute absolute at the moment it is so described.
BTW I am sure that other absolutes could have been used to demonstrate the intended point - simply not this one.