(Updated a bit, some typos corrected (I’m very tired…))

The old definition of the knowledge defines the knowledge in the following way: In order to consider something as knowledge, it must meet three criteria: It must be justified, true and believed.

People often say, that there are no absolute truths. But is it an absolute truth, that no absolute truths exist?

Let’s consider this, is it an absolute truth that no absolute truth exists. If it is, we are in contradiction in that, that no absolute truth exists, because if it was an absolute truth, that no absolute truth can exist.

So, one can’t absolutely deny the existence of an absolute truth –> contradiction follows.

Also, the absolute truth is stronger than “every day” truth, so is it even possible to cancel out absolute truth by pure “every day” concepts?

On the other hand, what if someone says, that no truth exists (relative truths, “any”  truths)? Is it true that no kind of truths exist? If it is true, we have contradiction again, because it was “true”, that no truths exist.

I see an absolute truth stronger, than relative truth or “any” truth, stronger than “everyday” truths. Considering the definition of knowledge on every day knowledge, the relativity of truth questions, that is any actual or “real” knowledge possible.

Considering an absolute truth, if we had “found” one, and we would attach it to the definition of knowledge, would we be forced to think the definition of knowledge again, because of the stronger perhaps fundamental characteristics of an absolute truth?

I mean, this sounds ridiculous, but if we had logical statement on the paper that actually was an absolute truth, would it must be also justified and believed? Perhaps the properties should be something stronger too…