Absolute Truth (WIP)

“Men have talked about the world without paying attention to the world or to their own minds, as if they were asleep or absent-minded.” - Heraclitus

The idea of absolute truth, a constant, stagnant, restricting truth, has gained a negative connotation in today’s world. People live their lives every day in avoidance of any certain truth, or purpose, which must be adhered to. Absolute is a word for religion, for Bible-pushers, for those who wish to by-pass the pleasures of life and ignore the wisdom of carpe diem. Qualitative statements are made by persons based on experiences, right? We’ve all become empiricists observing our own little worlds. If we all determine quality based on our subjective input, then isn’t right/wrong based on the individual? Forget the idea that rights and wrongs will collide and interfere with each other; we can all accept that with a little tolerance.

Such a world view presents a problem though, a serious issue. The underlying assumption of the “tolerance” argument, of the “no absolutes” idea, is not spoken, is in fact ignored, un-thought about, and disregarded, because to consider the idea of moral relativism is to uncover a contradiction. This contradiction is that stating the idea that “there is no absolute truth” is itself an absolute. The complete statement would look something like this: “It is an absolute truth that there is no absolute truth.” For indeed, if the argument against absolute truth is not in itself absolute, then it holds that there is room for absolute truth; and given any room for existence, absolute truth then rules out the idea of relevant truth. In essence, unless the statement against absolute truth is absolute itself, then it allows an opening for its defeat. Yet, if the statement is absolute, then by definition it defeats itself by contradiction. The idea that “there is no absolute truth” is an absolute truth, is self-defeating, illogical, foolish.

We are faced with only two choices in determining the existence of absolute truth. By definition of “absolute,” truth must exist, or not. If an absolute doesn’t exist all the time, for everyone, then it doesn’t exist all; which, as stated previously, is itself an absolute, and thus contradicts the notion of no absolute truth. Therefore we can either accept, or reject absolute truth. However, rejecting absolute truth requires a belief in absolute truth by which to deny its existence, and thus we really only have one option: to accept absolute truth as present, real, existence, for all people at all times. It may be asked, “But perhaps absolute truth is a new idea, one that did not exist in ancient times.” If there is an absolute truth, then it must have existed forever; it must be eternal, and beyond space and time. A non-eternal absolute truth is no different than a relevant truth.

Besides the fact that the existence absolute truth cannot be argued without a contradiction, absolute truth can be found in qualitative statements. When we make a statement about a thing’s quality, or correctness, we do so against the standard of absolute truth. Our views are based on an attempt to qualify a thing as true in the absolute sense. If truth was relevant, there would be no need to discuss, or claim it of anything. Each person would simply figure it out for themselves and that would be all that was needed. What would be the use of claiming one thing as truth, and another as false, if it did not matter in an absolute sense? How could one even start to form an argument when everything that one would use as support would only be true, relevant, and supportive for himself? When others heard the argument, not only would the claim be false for them, but all the support could be incorrect as well.

Teachers incorporate such an idea of absolute truth when they hand out tests for students. Each question has a true answer, and all questions being answered correctly is the absolute truth. When a teacher grades a test, she is making a qualitative statement about the answers that the student has given, and she determines the correctness based on the absolute truth of the test. The teacher then assigns a grade, usually a percentage, to show the student how close to the absolute truth he was. In the larger sense, we state that certain actions are good, and certain beliefs true, in an attempt to answer the test of life as closely to the absolute truth as possible. We make qualitative statements in our effort to receive a 100% grade on our assignment.

Following this analogy, we must ask who gave us the test in the first place. Who assigned absolute truth, and who will grade it when we are done and hand in the test? If absolute truth is eternal, and in a sense “outside this world”-in reference to our limitations of space and time, then the origin must also be eternal. It is foolish to consider that a being non-eternal could create something eternal; he would have no sense of eternity unless he himself could last forever outside of worldly restrictions. This is not to say that the being is beyond absolute truth however, as if he could somehow act in a way that did not follow absolute truth. Instead, because he created absolute truth, he must also determine it. Or perhaps it’s more accurately stated that absolute truth is determined by him, by his nature and who he is. Absolute truth is not so much a separate entity then, as it is simply the way things are, the way they must be in accordance with how this eternal being operates.