Is There Absolute Truth?

[nbcrusader]

We've danced around the question in another thread, however...


Does truth apply to all people at all times, or is everything relative?

 

[BVS]

I believe there is, but that humans will never fully know it while living on Earth. We may get close, but our feeble minds will never fully understand.

 

[stammer476]

Correct me if I'm being over-simplistic, but by logical definition, absolute truth has to exist. There are only two possibilities:

1.) Absolute Truth does exist.

OR

1.) Absolute Truth does not exist.
2.) The absolute statement that "absolute truth does not exist" is in itself an absolute truth.
3.) Absolute Truth does exist.

That's what I never understood about relativism. It only works if it breaks its own rules.

 

[Liesje]

Correct me if I'm being over-simplistic, but by logical definition, absolute truth has to exist. There are only two possibilities:

1.) Absolute Truth does exist.

OR

1.) Absolute Truth does not exist.
2.) The absolute statement that "absolute truth does not exist" is in itself an absolute truth.
3.) Absolute Truth does exist.

That's what I never understood about relativism. It only works if it breaks its own rules.

Did you make that up? If so,

I agree, there IS an absolute truth (maybe more than one?), but what exactly that truth is is a different issue...

 

[Ft. Worth Frog]

I have to say that there is absolute truth. A fellow grad student of mine has labeled themself a "post modernist" and is afraid to say something is better or worse than something else. However, I would say that that is dangerous because then one can rationalize anything from genocide and racism to gulags and thievery. If everything is relative, then what standard do we hold others to?

 

[verte76]

I think there is, but I don't want to say I know what it is. Gosh, I have to think about this! I know I'm on record as saying I'm post-modernist and alot of things are theories. Not *everything* in the universe, but social-science stuff like (partisan) political issues are theoretical. Things of God and morality are not. That being said I don't know these truths myself. There are all sorts of dangers and pitfalls in both asserting something as truth and asserting "everything is relative". You've got a point Ft. Worth with racism and gulags and the Holocaust and every other damn thing being "OK" if everything's relative. So it's really hard to say.

 

[Saracene]

Well, we inevitably end up judging others by the standards prevalent in our society at a specific day and time. Which change over the time. So I don't really see how absolute truth can exist when IMO the only place truth exists is inside the human heads.

 

[Ft. Worth Frog]

So if society's standards say racism is ok then we should not judge them by our standards? If that is the case, then why have so many worked to eradicate it?

 

[Saracene]

No, I'm not going to say that I think racism is alright if it happens somewhere else to someone else. Racism may be justified in some societies, and I can understand and take into account all the historical and cultural backgrounds that shaped this attitude, and even admit that taking these into account the majority of the people probably couldn't have been any other way. I still think it's bloody awful and a shame to all humanity.

All I'm saying is, when I express a view that racism is wrong, I don't assume that I'm asserting some absolute truth written in the skies somewhere, that existed for millennia before we finally found it.

 

[bonosloveslave]

Absolutely

 

[melon]

1.) Absolute Truth does not exist.
2.) The absolute statement that "absolute truth does not exist" is in itself an absolute truth.
3.) Absolute Truth does exist.

That's what I never understood about relativism. It only works if it breaks its own rules.

Cute, but it doesn't hold up. The concept of "absolute Truth" is a metanarrative--stories employed to legitimate the mechanisms of social control. Thus, for example, when parents tell their children, "We only want to help you avoid our mistakes," they are constructing a metanarrative that justifies the imposition of rules of conduct they are unwilling to follow themselves. The rejection of metanarratives and all "Truth" is a prominent hallmark of postmodern philosophy.

In postmodernism, any concept of "Truth" is a man-made interpretation, meaning that it really isn't true at all. Notice the capital "T." The concept of "truth," as in tangible facts ("the sky is blue," "people breathe oxygen," etc.) is not in question. It is when we start talking in "Truth" that none of it can be proven beyond one's opinion. "'Absolute Truth' does not exist" is not a metanarrative, because it is not an imposition of social control; rather, it is a rejection of it. With that, however, we should stop living in such absolutes. Sure, we live by some "Truths" governed by the science of "truths." That's reality.

I really hate this topic, because of its religious connotation. All religion is a "Truth," meaning that none of it can be proven. Thus, what this topic is really about is whether you can stand up and say that "I'm right" and "You're wrong." Well, guess what, folks? Everyone who belongs to the various religions and philosophies of the world thinks they're right and everyone else is wrong. Join the club. And no one can prove that their "Truth" is any better than anyone else's.

"Truth" = intangible; subjective interpretations--thus, isn't really a truth
"truth" = tangible; objective existence

Hopefully, what I wrote isn't too confusing...

Melon

 

[melon]

So if society's standards say racism is ok then we should not judge them by our standards? If that is the case, then why have so many worked to eradicate it?

Our plight against racism is predicated on a "Truth," which isn't necessarily a bad thing at all. While I operate on a "Truth" myself--"love one another"--I cannot say with "absolute" certainty that that command is any more "true" than any other.

That is, of course, all predicated on faith, none of which is universal.

Melon

 

[stammer476]

"'Absolute Truth' does not exist" is not a metanarrative, because it is not an imposition of social control; rather, it is a rejection of it.

I'm still not understanding why relativism isn't breaking its own rules here. If postmodernism is the rejection of social control, that IS an social control in itself. Anarchy is still a form of government, still a way of telling people what to do, the message is simply that you can do whatever you want to do.

My point is, relativism needs to listen to itself. If no truth is better than anyone else's, then relativism/postmodernism has no say over anyone else's worldview, either. I can simply reject relativism by its own statement, "Relativism may be true for you, but not for me."

It just seems to me that for relativism to work, it has to be a universally accepted philosophy, for it encompasses all truth and all opinion. Thus, anyone who rejects relativism, by definition, must be wrong. But with relativism, no one can be wrong, and thus the cycle goes on . . .

 

[Liesje]

Well, we inevitably end up judging others by the standards prevalent in our society at a specific day and time. Which change over the time. So I don't really see how absolute truth can exist when IMO the only place truth exists is inside the human heads.

What if one believes in a Truth greater than oneself/humankind? I believe in a Truth that transcends humanity (God and His truths, if you will).

I guess I can see where there is no absolute truth if one doesn't believe in a God that transcends time, humanity, creation, society, etc.