The Dictatorship of Relativism

Therein lies the crux! There is a reason why philosophers have been hashing over this one for several milennia.If truth doesn't actually exist beyond some abstract concept, then even your presumption of its concept, which the claimant implies is of course true, isn't of course true.If someone asks if truth is not real, obviously a quick and easy way to denude the question of its rationality is to simply point out that saying truth is not real is self-refuting. For if truth is not real, then even that declaration fails, in which case, truth does exist absolutely.Relative truth, in my opinion, simply defers the ultimate question about truth. It is easy to find some sort of apparent loophole in an supposed truth to show that it is not always absolute. But the deeper in to epistemology one goes, the quicker it becomes necessary for an absolute truth to philosophically exist.However, the problem with absolutism is that it cannot be empirically verified, but only philosophically. The claimant may struggle to prove what truth actually constitutes as an absolute truth. He will have much difficulty proving it, except philosophically.The only answer that will suffice to this great paradox is that an absolute truth must exist, yet it is only in relative form that it becomes apparent. That is a paradox, but not necessarily a contradiction.

I can remember from a previous thread ... a long debate on absolutes .. that the only agreement we could come to was that IF there are any absolutes , we still have the problem that the appear different , in importance and value , depending on where you view them from , and part of that difference is due to free will make absolute non-compulsory to each observer .we did agree a absolute truth is very usefull and should exsist , like a zero in maths .............. but most observers see it more as =(3x+5y)/((z/7)-(q/x)) plus or minus 12.84 % of dx/dy ...