4 ms·

Then they're contingent on agreement and thus fail to be absolute. It is more accurate to say that truth is a negotiation.

aSplash0fDerp 7y ago
As someone who's traveled, I totally agree with this. You should do an AskHN: Does Absolute Truth Exist Its been a while since I've read a good philosophical debate on HN.
mycall 7y ago
There are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares. Definition is identity, self-reflective. Absolute truth must exist. If there was no such thing as absolutely truth then it is absolutely true that there is no absolute truth. In other words, a logical contradiction.
- jlokier 7y ago
  > Absolute truth must exist. If there was no such thing as absolutely truth then it is absolutely true that there is no absolute truth. In other words, a logical contradiction. We can play the metalogical game the other way too. If all statements about X being true are language for "I the speaker believe X to be true but I understand the statement's truth is relative to my perspective", then all statements about truth are non-absolute, including this one without contradiction.
- aalleavitch 7y ago
  > There are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squircle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squircle Absolute truth exists relative to axioms. Given x, y. Even the law of identity is not metaphysically necessary; Deleuze argues that difference and repetition are prior to identity. > Absolute truth must exist. If there was no such thing as absolutely truth then it is absolutely true that there is no absolute truth. In other words, a logical contradiction. This argument still assumes absolute truth! It is made in the framework in which truths can be absolute as opposed to relative, but what I'm saying is that this dichotomy is invalid. The more accurate statement against absolute truth is not "it is absolutely true that there is no absolute truth" but rather "absolute truth is nonsense because absolute and relative truth are not different except within a defined set of axioms". It's like having an absolute position in space. A position in space is only ever absolute given a frame of reference, because that's what defines it. Assuming an axiom is what defines an absolute truth. To ask someone what their position is without a defined frame of reference is nonsense.

aSplash0fDerp 7y ago

As someone who's traveled, I totally agree with this. You should do an AskHN: Does Absolute Truth Exist Its been a while since I've read a good philosophical debate on HN.

mycall 7y ago

There are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares. Definition is identity, self-reflective. Absolute truth must exist. If there was no such thing as absolutely truth then it is absolutely true that there is no absolute truth. In other words, a logical contradiction.

jlokier 7y ago
> Absolute truth must exist. If there was no such thing as absolutely truth then it is absolutely true that there is no absolute truth. In other words, a logical contradiction. We can play the metalogical game the other way too. If all statements about X being true are language for "I the speaker believe X to be true but I understand the statement's truth is relative to my perspective", then all statements about truth are non-absolute, including this one without contradiction.
aalleavitch 7y ago
> There are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squircle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squircle Absolute truth exists relative to axioms. Given x, y. Even the law of identity is not metaphysically necessary; Deleuze argues that difference and repetition are prior to identity. > Absolute truth must exist. If there was no such thing as absolutely truth then it is absolutely true that there is no absolute truth. In other words, a logical contradiction. This argument still assumes absolute truth! It is made in the framework in which truths can be absolute as opposed to relative, but what I'm saying is that this dichotomy is invalid. The more accurate statement against absolute truth is not "it is absolutely true that there is no absolute truth" but rather "absolute truth is nonsense because absolute and relative truth are not different except within a defined set of axioms". It's like having an absolute position in space. A position in space is only ever absolute given a frame of reference, because that's what defines it. Assuming an axiom is what defines an absolute truth. To ask someone what their position is without a defined frame of reference is nonsense.