stammer476 said:
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