(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…
Noone must accuse without truth.
* * *
Solution without meaningful goal may be an apex of stupidity.
* * *
If an absolute truth does not exist, only truths, every truth may be a lie; and every lie may be a truth. Without absolute truth there exists ”balance of falsehood”; lie and truth are equal. Everyone is right and wrong; and every fight is useless, because everyone are equally right or wrong with each other; in this madness it would be insane to claim that one is more right (in something) that some other; that would be inequality in ”balance of falsehood”, injustice.
But let us assume, that absolute truth does exists (we don’t editorialize in the number of absolute truths). Now every truth that isn’t in meaningful way related to an absolute truth is sometime a lie; and every truth that is in a meaningful way related to an absolute truth, will shine in time with an absolute truth.
The truths kinds of previous can be real building blocks of philosophers, if the goal is to get out of the tin of glass without breaking the glass. With tin of glass I refer to ”balance of falsehood”.
* * *
(This is just my humor.) In apparent democracy where one is not allowed to think freely – not to even have own opinions – there exist three kinds of opinions:

Wrong opinions

Own opinions

Right opinions
With more precise analysis we can get following result of kinds of opinions

Wrong opinions

Own opinions

”Right” opinions

Right opinions
And maybe we can add the most relevant:

The official opinions (=”the facts” on the other hand ”the truth”)
* * *
What is implication from logically false statement? In genuinely meaningful set of concepts always logically false.
But if the set of concepts isn’t genuinely semantically meaningful, particularly if the set of concepts is internally contradictory, it may seem, that the logical implication from false is sometimes logically true (or vice versa)!
Internally contradictory set of concepts is apparently logical world of concepts, what make it possible the rise of paradoxes.
* * *
With mathematical proofs we have the familiar concepts, sufficient and necessary condition. For example, a condition can be necessary to proof a theorem, but it is not sufficient.
Since mathematics as such has nothing to do with life (it’s only ideas in one mind), let us apply a little these concepts to stress managing.
If someone has strong need for example hit someone, he/she can consider, that it is necessary. If it is (in someone’s opinion), but it isn’t sufficient, the whole decision plan must be rethought: The whole plan to solve the problem must be something else.
The rules of mathematics are “solid” (in their context), but humans’ life is dynamic, therefore one can’t always and in everything behave in the same way. For example, one can’t always follow one’s every emotion.
It was about 20 years ago when I first came up with this idea…
The thought goes like this:
Is it an absolute truth that absolute truth doesn’t exist?
Let us assume that someone says that it is an absolute truth that absolute truth doesn’t exist.
This is now in contradiction with the fact that absolute truth doesn’t exist, because the one who denies absolutely the existence of absolute truth is immeditialy in contradiction with existence of absolute truth, because the sayer just stated one absolute truth stating that it would be an absolute truth that absolute truth doesn’t exist.
So, we can’t absolutely deny the existence of absolute truth! That would lead us into logical contradiction.
Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
The question is: Does an absolute truth exist? Do many absolute truths exist?
Of course every truths are not absolute truths, but it seems quite obvious that at least one absolute truth exists. At least denying absolutely the whole concept of absolute truth leads into logical contradiction, as stated earlier…
Just an old thought of mine…
Link: