A question for those who believe truth is not absolute

[Kingpin]

It appears to be a contradiction in terms, so that the answer "yes" is paradoxical.

If we answer "yes", we have an absolute truth; but then the claim itself is that truth is relative and not absolute. So the statement cannot be true. It's like the Liar paradox.

This doesn't say anything much about absolute or relative truth, other than their incompatibility within statements.

I do see where you're going, you're saying "it's not absolutely true that truth is relative". But if truth is relative, absolute truth is a meaningless concept and so is irrelevant. Truth could also be some sort of mixture of the two.

But you can't simply say that "truth is relative" because that is a self defeating statement.  By making that statement you are declaring an absolute while denying their existence.  If truth is relative then so is that statement making not always true.  

I've also heard "everything is meaningless".  Another self-defeating, because if you believe that to be true, that makes it meaningful which means not everything is meaningless.  But if everything is meaningless then so is that statement and can be disregarded as pointless.

[robvalue]

That's a good point, it would appear to need some refinement!

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

I think when people say "Truth is relative" what they actually mean is "There is no evidence truth is absolute". Atleast that's what I mean, there is evidence (although not as strong) that truth very well might be relative but there is 0 evidence that truth is absolute, you know?

[Kingpin]

I think when people say "Truth is relative" what they actually mean is "There is no evidence truth is absolute". Atleast that's what I mean, there is evidence (although not as strong) that truth very well might be relative but there is 0 evidence that truth is absolute, you know?

But again even that statement is self-defeating.  You are DECLARING DEFINITIVELY that there is NO evidence truth is absolute.  You are presenting as a truthful statement.  Meaning that statement is an absolute truth statement, but that is in fact what the statement is meant to deny.  Any way you slice it, truth is not relative.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I think when people say "Truth is relative" what they actually mean is "There is no evidence truth is absolute". Atleast that's what I mean, there is evidence (although not as strong) that truth very well might be relative but there is 0 evidence that truth is absolute, you know?

As per the earlier example, the empirical evidence is that various people can agree the bananas are not cube shaped, don't ya know? Other than that their are many self-evident absolutes such as the Principle of Non-contradiction and the Law of Identity. If you are going to still maintain that all truth is relative then you are either insane or just being contrary for fun.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Just to be clear though, IS there any evidence that truth is absolute?
I feel that for truth to be absolute different perceptions as a concept shouldn't exist.

[robvalue]

We'd have to be using "truth" in two different senses. We'd need the sense for the statement we are making, in that we are implying it is true; and then we'd need to redefine what "relative truth" actually means in a way that doesn't directly reference regular truth.

I'm not saying it can be done in a useful way, or what it would mean if you accomplished it; I'm just thinking of a workaround, so the statements "truth is relative" could be meaningful.

Looking at it another way: can it be that something is true, but it cannot be coherently displayed as a true statement without causing a paradox? In a similar way that some things can be true but can't be proven true, in abstract systems.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Just to be clear though, IS there any evidence that truth is absolute?

What? The Law of Identity and the Principle of Non-Contradiction aren't good enough for you?

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Just to be clear though, IS there any evidence that truth is absolute?

What? The Law of Identity and the Principle of Non-Contradiction aren't good enough for you?

In logic, the law of identity is the first of the three classical laws of thought. It states that "each thing is the same with itself and different from another".

Basically what it says is that X is what X is, X is different from what Y is.

Pillow is what pillow is, pillow is different from what bed is.
This is a relative truth.
Saying X is what X is have more of a chance of being an absolute truth,even then the statement that X is what X is hinges on the belief that Y is not X. If there is a Y that is X then the statement that X is what X is becomes meaningless. Because that statement could be contradicted by the statement that X is what Y is.
Everything is relative to something.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Well if all you are saying is that truthful propositions have a relationship with objective reality then why all the fuss? That's a far cry from from saying that everyone has their own truth which is what people usually mean when they say all truth is relative.