"What is absolutely true is always correct, everywhere, all the time, under any condition. An entity's ability to
discern these things is irrelevant to that state of truth." - Steven Robiner
Absolute truth can be interpreted in different ways based on its usage, just like truth. Some believe that the correct
communication cannot be found for describing ideas of absolute truth by entities that possess the metaphysically true state of the ability
to lie and have lied before, thus making the following description vulnerable to potential inaccuracy as long as those entities maintain the
definition. One of the arguments for the existence of absolute truth is that relativism is considered to be self refuting. For example, it
is argued that if one asserts all truth is relative one is making an absolute truth statement. Thus, relativism is seen as self refuting.
Except that a relativist could state "To a relativist, all things are relative, but to an absolutist, they may not be".
Absolute truth is often defined in two ways: state-truth and action-verity form.
As a state (truth)
Absolutism contends that in a particular domain of thought, all statements in that domain are either absolutely true or
absolutely false: none is true for some cultures or eras while false for other cultures or eras. These statements are called absolute
truths. A common reaction by those who newly criticize absolutism is the absolute truth statement: Absolute truths do not exist.
The statement, 'Absolute truths do not exist.', reveals the characteristic of absolute truth. Absolute truth does not
apply to reality, existence, belief, or to human intelligence. In the logic of dichotomy of true-not true, application is without respect to
what is absolutely true. Certainly, absolute truth does not define material existence, but supports material existence, position, and state
of being. Absolute truth is as applicable to 'not true' as it is to 'true'.
The double negative reveals this monistic status of absolute truth. The non-existence of absolute truth would, if true,
be as true as the existence of absolute truth in an absolute sense. To postulate the non-existence of truth; however, is to violate the most
fundamental capacity of mind. It is as though a snake could swallow itself by starting at the tail. Therein lies the value of absolute truth
for thought. Violation of truth value in an absolute sense, validates the truth value of existence versus non-existence. Some say, "If I see
it I believe it." Others say, "I believe it if I know it." If the sense of knowing is little better than the sense of sight, little can be
made of the analogy. The acuity of the sense of absolute truth may not be good enough for most to clearly distinguish the difference between
what is true and truth itself.
One could ask, 'Is it true that truth exists?' One can also ask, 'Is it true that truth does not exist?' The first can
be affirmed by mind, while the latter cannot be affirmed without a gross distortion of sense. If truth does not exist, it would certainly be
true that truth does not exist. That is the quality of absolute truth. If the negation were true, one could not ask the question and expect
a true answer. Absolute truth is the essence of thought and distinguishes the capacity of the sapient being.
As an action (verity)In action form, absolute truth most closely represents verity. This form can be likened to the
action usage of metaphysical truth, but not its state usage (which represent metaphysical truths in state form). Absolute truth in action
form is considered by many to be metaphysical only, and therefore the same as the action usage of metaphysical truth. Some believe the
outcome of absolute truth (verity) can be metaphysical truths, physical truths or both, but by definition not any form of a lie.
A particularly confusing absolute truth in state form (but good for example) is:
Absolute truth cannot be a lie.
Some interpret this to mean:
The outcome of absolute truth cannot be a lie.
But that refers specifically to the action form of absolute truth. Others interpret it as:
Absolute truth statements cannot be lies.
But that refers specifically to the state form of absolute truth. The original statement can be interpreted as either
the state or action form. In the state form the statement is not true, but in the action form it is true. Either way the statement is an
absolute truth in state form.
A potential example of absolute truth in action form is:
The words you are reading exist because of absolute truths in action form supporting their ability to exist.
Attentive readers will recognize the previous statement as an absolute truth in state form describing absolute truth in action form. Whether
or not the statement is true is left as an exercise for the reader.
An interesting paradox arises when someone refutes the existence of any absolute truths. Their statement might be
something along the lines of:
There are no absolute truths.
If this statement were true, it would imply that it is an absolute truth itself. And if this statement is an absolute
truth, it would contradict its original statement and mean that the statement is in fact false. Therefore it is impossible to prove that
there are absolutely no absolute truths. However, this doesn’t necessarily imply that they exist.
A more proper way of stating it would be to say that "Relative truth is correct". Although this seems to be an absolute
statement, it is in fact not, because it does not exclude that "Absolute truth is also correct". To a relativist, whose culture holds this
as a tenet; relativism is indeed correct. But a relativist can also allow that to one raised in a culture of absolutism, it would be