• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Truth: Absolute or Relative?

kamikaze__

kamikaze__

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
100
Location
Canada
I have a philosophy essay (grade 12) to write... and i was hoping for a little help from BL =).

The topic of my essay is "Is Truth Absolute or Relative?". My viewpoint is that truth is absolute, and that it may only appear relative because people are comparing two unlike things.

Eg: societal rules are very different from culture to culture, but they should not be compared. Each culture has their own set of rules which is absolute (in Europe, an uncle and nephew would kiss cheeks when they meet, whereas people who were born in North America may associate this with homosexuality).

What im looking for is both support and opposition for this, so that ill be able to address as many issues as i can. Also, more examples like the one above would help too. Thanks :)
 
Thats like a trick question; the term truth denotes an absoluteness....If truth is realtive, then it can't be true. Some people belief that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, but the true immutable fact is that the only people with AIDS have had HIV....
 
truth in itself is absolute
but we are not truth
and by we i mean i, the ego
as long as there is ego there will be duality
so we can only know about relative truth
absolute truth is a concept, just like god
concepts are part of subjective reality

we can experience truth as a feeling
but feelings are not absolute
they are relative
cuz time is happening
what is truth today might not be tomorrow
what is truth to some might not be to others
 
So if I believe 2+2=5 than that makes it true? No.

"Well, it's true to you" lol.

Here we go again. :D
 
This is a good question.

I think truth is relative.

I think everything is relative with respect to the person who's applying the truth.

Thank you Ms. Physics teacher!
 
this is a tough question for a highschool paper. If you want a neat little answer to this, you should use Bernard Williams's argument against cultural relativity. To say that the truth is relative means that there are no absolutes. But saying that everything is relative is an absolute. Ergo, the truth is not relative.

You can also read James Rachels's paper called The Challenge of Cultural Relativism for more intuitive discussion on the subject. However, you will not get a concrete argument from Rachels. He simply points out that if the truth is relative, then we have no basis for criticizing atrocities like the holocaust since killing jews was right for germans in nazi germany, and we simply feel that this is false. Similarly, without absolute truths we have no basis for comparing our current society to those
in the past, and thus the idea of moral progress is impossible. Note that cultural relativists can take the easy route out here and simply agree to those terms though. This not an option with the Williams argument which points out the inherent paradox within the cultural relativist position.

haha, there's a great paper for you.
 
I believe there is one absolute truth.

From that one truth many other truths can be derived. These truths may only apply in a certain context, or time and space.

Those truths are relative.
 
easy essay.

"the only truth that is absolute is that there is no absolute truth."

truth – noun, plural truths [troothz, trooths]
1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
4. the state or character of being true.
5. actuality or actual existence.
6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
8. (often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
9. agreement with a standard or original.
10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
11. Archaic. fidelity or constancy.
12. in truth, in reality; in fact; actually: In truth, moral decay hastened the decline of the Roman Empire.
Click to expand...

ab·so·lute [ab-suh-loot, ab-suh-loot] –adjective
1. free from imperfection; complete; perfect: absolute liberty.
2. not mixed or adulterated; pure: absolute alcohol.
3. complete; outright: an absolute lie; an absolute denial.
4. free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way: absolute command; absolute freedom.
5. unrestrained or unlimited by a constitution, counterbalancing group, etc., in the exercise of governmental power, esp. when arbitrary or despotic: an absolute monarch.
6. viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic: absolute knowledge.
7. positive; certain: absolute in opinion; absolute evidence.

14. something that is not dependent upon external conditions for existence or for its specific nature, size, etc. (opposed to relative).
15. the absolute,
a. something that is free from any restriction or condition.
b. something that is independent of some or all relations.
c. something that is perfect or complete.
d. (in Hegelianism) the world process operating in accordance with the absolute idea.
Click to expand...

so, apart from being a tautology, the "absolute truth" is an oxymoron. strange but true, for how can something the unbound by rules, and yet bound to one. the absolute truth does not exist.

this means that the truth, being a figment of the human imagination, must be a relative concept... it must only exist when the human imagination deems it necessary, and it must be individualized and personalized for each human being.

if the truth was absolute, it wouldn't be called the truth. it would be called god, string theory (or m theory or some theory) or determinism.
 
swilow said:
Thats like a trick question; the term truth denotes an absoluteness....If truth is realtive, then it can't be true. Some people belief that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, but the true immutable fact is that the only people with AIDS have had HIV....
Click to expand...
could be a coincedence. an infetismally small coincedence.

if you jump, how do you know you are going to come back down? Sure gravity has acted in the same mannor, a large number (not infinity) of times before. Could be coincedence. There is no way to predict the future with 100% certainty and accuracy, thus it is within the realms of possibility that all known "facts" could be userped, this is the nature of the universe.

Type I error, also known as an "error of the first kind", an α error, or a "false positive": the error of rejecting a null hypothesis when it is actually true. Plainly speaking, it occurs when we are observing a difference/parrtern when in truth there is none.

The chances of a type 1 error are inversely proprtional to the survey's power, ie the number of times something's been observed.

In science, we accept something as "true" when the chances of it being false approach 0. When something is predictable like gravity we can perform many experiments and get repeatably accurate results, but we can't perform an infinite number of experiments so there remains the microscopically small chance of it all being coincedence explained by a completely different mannor.

For thousands of years, people knew the sun orbited the earth, they could see it move accross the sky. Of course, the sun wasn't moving, they were spinning and so moving relative to the sun. Something can come and userp thoeries that seem plain as day, there is always chance.

So yes, truth is "technically" relative. All we know, is what's in our own minds. BUT, when the chance of something being untrue in the absolute mannor become so small as to approach zero (gravity exists for example), then it is reasonable to assume it absolutely true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top