It seems like there are two competing ideas here, one is advocating moral relativism and the other advocates subjectivity. Without completely destroying the discussion, I think it is helpful to remind everyone we are using language to describe the universe. Language changes. It is vulnerable to dialect, idioms, and misunderstanding. I went to dictionary.com to try to narrow down what "absolute truth" is.
Truth: noun, plural "truths"
- the true or actual state of a matter: "He tried to find out the truth."
- conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
- a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
- the state or character of being true.
- actuality or actual existence.
- an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
- honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
And now "Absolute" which is modifying the "Truth" we are discussing.
Absolute: adjective
- free from imperfection; complete; perfect: "absolute liberty."
- not mixed or adulterated; pure: "absolute alcohol."
- complete; outright: "an absolute lie; an absolute denial."
4.free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way: "absolute command; absolute freedom."
As we can see, even in the realm of language, there is a lot of differences in what we are talking about. In one sense, truth could mean "an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude" or it could mean, "honesty; integrity; truthfulness."
Since "absolute" is just modifying "truth" in this context, it would really help to know what you consider "truth" to be. You argue against "truth," saying it doesn't exist, but you never really define what it is. Since "Absolute" is modifying "truth", what specific truth are you talking about and how could it be "Absolute"? If "truth" and "absolute truth" don't exist, how are we able to use those words with any meaning? When I say, "Water (H20) can take the form of a gas, solid, or liquid," am I being untruthful? You say, "An objective truth has to be aspired by all people that ever lived and will ever live in our species. Yes, every single one across time and space. This is what makes the truth "absolute". " But if someone told me that water is only a liquid and never a gas or solid, it would do nothing to undermine the truth of my previous statement. It would just mean that they are wrong. Another helpful place to look might be the works of Derrida on deconstruction. The basic idea is that we can't know what the word "raw" means without understanding what the word "cooked" means. They are inter-related, just like a truth and a lie is. I don't mean to be rude, but the whole article breaks down into incoherence and is unintelligible without proper definitions. I understand that you can't prove a negative, but in that case you shouldn't be using the terms of the negative, or you need to redefine them. I suspect you are trying to argue for relativism on some level and against fundamentalist religious ideas, but I think you need to use different language to do.
A verifiable act or observation at given point in time.
No worries. I always enjoy a good critique. This is part 2 after all and linked other ideas. I did not want to delve with complicated philosophical concepts but rather convey the average perception of things as experienced by most people. It wouldn't matter if I define the words since most people have their own definitions.
It seems like the purpose of the article is to stir up a general conversation of the subject, even if it is incendiary. I'm curious what you would think of the quote from Mahatma Gandhi, "Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth." It seems like you are putting forth your own, "verifiable act or observation," but if you don't believe truth exists or can be known, why do you care what anyone else thinks? Again, not trying to be rude, and I get that the article is meant to be provocative.
Indeed, the subjective truth.
no problem. i accept critique. harsh even. I try to get different perspectives. I don't enjoy moral absolutism.