Talk:Absolute truth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Clarity of Absolute Truth

The Wikipedia article on Absolute Truth fails to capture the simple clarity of what absolute truth means and why it matters. Absolutes are things that are defined in the real world of actual events, thoughts, or patterns. They may come in the form of statements, "There is no cheese in the moon" that describe something, or in statements that prescribe something, like "Human life would cease without oxygen."


I have run a website on the subject of absolute truth [1] from a religious perspective for a number of years, and the feedback I get always amazes me. Some feel that any claim to absolute truth is illegitmate, others insist that if there were absolute truths, humans could not verify them as such. Others wonder why the word "absolute" is used at all, when the definition of "truth" should cover the concept sufficiently.


Typically, absolute truth is used to convey a truth in universal terms - a truth that is always true for all people in any place. Religious doctrines are often spoken with this "absolute" perspective, as are some scientific or mathematical principles.


Is it possible that absolute truth does not exist? I don't believe so, because if some "lesser" truth does exist, then some "higher" truth must define the possiblity and defintion of that lesser truth. Thus, there must be some overarching, all-encompassing reality that is the root of all other reality. Christians and other theists understand this reality to be God, other philosophies generate alternate explanations. With this in mind, "truth" is valid only in the context of "absolute truth." Without something "absolute" as a foundation, no truth would be knowable.


On a more practical level, many view absolute truth as a basis for their own purpose in life, for if no "absolute" template existed for what should be versus what should not be, humans would possess no way of knowing if they were indeed doing anything "worthwhile." If all actions and ideas are equally valid (that is, possess no validity in and of themselves), then there would be no measurement of what a successful or purposeful life could be. Absolute truth makes it possible to conceive of a meaningful existence.


Every occurrence of the word "lie" on this article could probably be replaced by "falsity" or "untruth". "Lie" has strong implication of the intent to deceive. Falsity may be a good generalization of lie that still preserves the definitions.

[edit] Confusing

This explanation of Absolute Truth sounds like it was taken out of an advanced linguistics textbook. I'm an educated man, but after having read this entry twice, I feel no more informed than when I got here. Can someone else please take a crack at this definition? Without all the pretentious and unnecessarily confusing language? The only people who will appreciate this entry are those who already have english/philosophy degrees and likely don't need to be reading it...

When I read it I see two viewpoints for a definition of “absolute truth.”

  1. The absolutism view: A statement like “War is evil.” or “Good always prevails.”
  2. The “metaphysical” view: The essence, or actuality, of truth. Verity.

Unfortunately, these are different things. I think that the last example assumes a particular definition of existence, which further confuses things.

The line of thinking is that absolute truth is a prerequisite to any existential thing, whether physical or metaphysical, including absolutism. The "existence" of absolute truth being a redundant black hole of sorts. The implication is that if existence is possible at all, it is because absolute truth first is. Thus, absolute truth is different from the absolute truths of absolutism. And the absolute truths of absolutism exist only because of absolute truth. It can be pretty confusing. But the English language isn't the best helper here either. Love, for instance, is often used by secular society under the same definition as covet, a word of complete opposite meaning to the traditional definition of love. The word truth is a victim in the same manner. Perhaps that is one reason why this entry exists in the first place. More research needs to be done on words that have solitary definitions that are harder to be confused than general multi-purpose words like truth and existence. Then those words should be used to clean up this definition.

[edit] Junk?

This article looks like junk to me - certainly to the extent that this is meant to be about truth as something studied in philosophy. It has an air of 'original research'. If there's anything worth keeping in here, it should be moved to truth. Ben Finn 14:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I oppose tampering with a stable article (truth), just to fix a currently unfounded article (Absolute truth) which is in need of more work. The problems need to be worked out on this page, first.
There is a psychological tactic in the usage of the terms. First, 'truth' is something psychologically positive. But the modifier 'Absolute' tampers with the meaning of 'truth'. It reminds me of my favorite oxymoron, 'heavily unsalted peanuts'. Some modifiers should not be combined if you wish to avoid garbage. I am afraid that 'Absolute truth' is a term which seems to suggest 'non-negotiability'. Thus (I am projecting here) one in possession of 'Absolute truth' seems to be stating a 'cultural value' rather than a value in keeping with, say a 'socially accepted norm'. I will be more direct: one in possession of 'Absolute truth' has a treasure valuable possibly to oneself, but not necessarily to others; i.e., One man's gift is another man's poison. --Ancheta Wis 09:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Upon re-reading, I see that the Collapse (book) article is pertinent here. Let us suppose that one believes, as an 'Absolute truth', that by erecting a monument (say, a head as large as a house), one will attain 'Harmony with the Universe', by definition. Furthermore, suppose that there is no room for dissent with 'Absolute truth'; if one dissents, one is ordered off the island (which is certain death). In that case, one who lives in a society devoted to 'Absolute truth' will be building a lot of monuments. Eventually all critical resources on the island are consumed for the sake of the monuments, and no one can build anymore monuments. Far-fetched? It actually happened on Easter Island, so long ago that no one remembered how the monuments got there, on an island with no trees (they had been chopped down in the past, causing an ecological catastrophe for the inhabitants). In other words, devotion to an 'Absolute truth' was a recipe for failure. --Ancheta Wis 10:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Thus, one in undoubted possession of 'Absolute truth' may in fact be blinded to the truth. --Ancheta Wis 11:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
An absolute truth is non-negotiable. If I stabbed someone, then it is absolutely true that someone got stabbed. The fact that they got stabbed is completely irrelevant to the fact that might be acceptable in my culture that a man can stab his wife if she is unfaithful, or I was under the influence of drugs at the time, or whatever. A lawyer would never argue about the absolutely true fact that the victim was stabbed (for the lawyer to form a defence from the perspective of Cartesian scepticism would be ridiculous). On the other hand, a statement that could equate to a universal truth would be the assumption that everyone who gets stabbed dies from the injuries. I suggest that this article is unmerged from universality (philosophy). Hypershock (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A truth that is valid in all times & places is ordinarily call a universal truth. Should be merged to truth or to universality (philosophy). Lapaz 17:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)