"There is no absolute truth". The only time a contradiction can be true?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben_Sinner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Ben_Sinner

Guest
I’ve been giving myself headaches trying to solve this.

The argument against the assertion of (X)There is no absolute truth is (Y)That assertion is an absolute truth, so it is self-refuting

But my question is this: How?

If (X) is absolutely true, than that means we are absolutely certain that there are no absolutes. It sounds very strange, but if it truly is absolutely true that there is no absolute truth, than we are being certain that there is no absolute truth…thus we don’t self-refute anything.

on the other hand though…

If (X) is NOT TRUE, then that just leaves the question open and absolute truth hasn’t been proven yet.

Am I missing something in the equation here?
 
Ben_Sinner said:
I’ve been giving myself headaches trying to solve this.

The argument against the assertion of (X)There is no absolute truth is (Y)That assertion is an absolute truth, so it is self-refuting

But my question is this: How?

If (X) is absolutely true, than that means we are absolutely certain that there are no absolutes. It sounds very strange, but if it truly is absolutely true that there is no absolute truth, than we are being certain that there is no absolute truth…thus we don’t self-refute anything.

on the other hand though…

If (X) is NOT TRUE, then that just leaves the question open and absolute truth hasn’t been proven yet.

Am I missing something in the equation here?
Click to expand...
It is a self-refuting statement that relativists rely on to remain in their delusions. No one who has ever critically thought about that statement uses or believes it. If you find someone who actually believes this, it’s actually kind of fun to point it out to them, especially when they try to stick to even when you’ve pointed out the inherent self-contradiction.
 
Your mind is proof that there is absolute truth.
Why? because you are trying to find it, and will not be satisfied until you do.
A human never tries to get what he knows is impossible to be had.
While you may want to fly under your own muscle power, you do not keep flapping your arms to try (though you may invent a type of wings and mechanism to do it, you still will not try to do it with your bare arms alone - a human never seeks what he knows is not findable; but you do continue looking for truth, meaning you KNOW deep within yourself it is real and absolute, even if you can’t seem to grasp it yet - you will find it, and it will be absolute).

Those who say there is no absolute truth do not want it, so they do not seek it, nor do they care that it is possible to find, nor do they want anyone to find it because they do not wish for it to exist in their presence.

Saying there is no absolute truth is to discourage others (and the self) from seeking it.
 
It’s word play. You have to define whT you mean by ‘truth’. In my experience, in a phrase such as you have quoted, it is usually written with an upper case T.

However, the statement: ‘There are no true statements’ is a contradiction.

The qualifier ‘absolute’ is redundant
 
Bradski said:
It’s word play. You have to define whT you mean by ‘truth’. In my experience, in a phrase such as you have quoted, it is usually written with an upper case T.

However, the statement: ‘There are no true statements’ is a contradiction.

The qualifier ‘absolute’ is redundant
Click to expand...
Actually, the qualifier “absolute” is necessary because it frames hte type of truth we’re discussing, usually the upper case Truth, as you noted. This statement, that there is no such thing as absolute truth, is something that many of us have heard repeatedly in our debates when we begin discussing certain positions. I have had two friends use the statement as an argument to support their positions on multiple occasions, despite pointing out the obvious flaw. I’ve had numerous other people try to claim it as well.

This usually comes up when we begin discussing such things as if murder is always wrong, or if we can objectively determine the proper use of different aspect of human physiology. I also frequently see it used by universalist types who think all religions are the same.

It is a phrase that modern relativists commonly use to support their position that truth (lowercase or uppercase) cannot be known.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
Actually, the qualifier “absolute” is necessary because it frames hte type of truth we’re discussing, usually the upper case Truth, as you noted. This statement, that there is no such thing as absolute truth, is something that many of us have heard repeatedly in our debates when we begin discussing certain positions. I have had two friends use the statement as an argument to support their positions on multiple occasions, despite pointing out the obvious flaw. I’ve had numerous other people try to claim it as well.

This usually comes up when we begin discussing such things as if murder is always wrong, or if we can objectively determine the proper use of different aspect of human physiology. I also frequently see it used by universalist types who think all religions are the same.

It is a phrase that modern relativists commonly use to support their position that truth (lowercase or uppercase) cannot be known.
Click to expand...
So in this case, ‘truth’ can mean ‘murder’? I think that what your friends mean (and it seems like they haven’t pout their point across very well) is that there are no moral absolutes such as ‘killing is wrong’, which is an absolute statement. It is not qualified in any way.

‘Murder is wrong’ is not an absolute statement. It is a statement about killing in a particular way. It is a statement that has already been qualified (killing someone is wrong IF it is done unlawfully and IF it done with premeditation and IF etc).

Perhaps it might be convenient if you gave your definition of Truth and then we can discuss if the term absolute is even applicable.
 
I agree that the qualifier is redundant.

However, I understand that people like to use the word truth with various definitions and thus separate what they are discussing with a T.

I just tend to find the purpose meaningless to split the definition.

What is true, is true.

Perhaps the T vs. t is why people think ‘fullness of’ truth is some kind of comparison when used by the CC.

Its not. It’s simply the house that has accurate answers not found elsewhere.

Where there is understanding of a truth elsewhere, the Church nods it’s head in agreement.
 
I have a theory the only thing we can be certain of is we will never know what is true. Was it Oscar Wilde who said the plain and simple truth is rarely plain and never simple?

We can believe things are true, but it is a rare occasion to know for certain something is true.

To illustrate, we can say we believe someone is a nice person. Someone else may believe they are not a nice person. Both statements can equally be true because all of us are both nice and not nice. What others believe about us depends on which side of our nature they have experienced.

We know physical things exist because we can see them and others see them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top