0

First of all, I want to point out I am not any expert in philosophy, so this question is not based in no further readings, but only my own knowledge in logic.

Imagine I want to proof the truth is relative and that will lead to a contradiction:

  • Premise: The truth is relative.
  • Deduction: If the truth is relative, there are neither pure true nor false statements.
  • Demonstration: Therefore, to affirm that the truth is absolute is neither true nor false, therefore, it can be affirmed that the truth is absolute, contradicting the premise.
  • Conclusion: Therefore, the truth must be absolute.

Now, imagine I want to proof the truth is absolute and that will not lead to any contradiction:

  • Premise: The truth is absolute.
  • Deduction: If the truth is absolute, there are pure true and false statements.
  • Demonstration: Therefore, to affirm that the truth is relative is true or false, but, now it cannot be affirmed that the truth is relative, because it is purely false (if it was true, we would be accepting relativity in the premise, which we do not). And if we say truth is absolute, that is the premise.
  • Conclusion: Therefore, the truth IS absolute (which does not lead to any contradiction).

What is it wrong in my proof? I am sure there must be lots of ideas I am missing.

(Note that my sense of relativity does not refer to a disparity of opinions that may exist in politics, but, for example, truths regarding the universe; in the sense, for example, of Ayn Rand's absolute truth as opposed to relative truths of other classical philosophers).

7
  • We generally do not assess original ideas here. What I can say, though, is this: truth in the pragmatically interesting sense is not a logical, but an epistemological problem. So the question should not be whether there is an absolute truth, but whether or how we can know it. And there, we can say that there cannot be any absolute standard for truth since we cannot know whether this standard is true itself, ie. any positing of truth is arbitrary/relative.
    – Philip Klöcking
    Mar 20 at 14:28
  • Sorry, will I delete the post then? Thanks for the answer anyway!
    – Theo Deep
    Mar 20 at 14:31
  • You have not sufficiently expressed the argument in correct form as done in Philosophy. You need to look up how to do it correctly. Secondly if your premises were all.true them the conclusion MUST BE TRUE by definition. Thirdly, you would prove the entire field of mathematics is worthless as well as most other academic topics. Fourthly, truth has two basic categories in epistemology: contingent & objective. You don't seem to be aware of this FACT. If you were you would not think the way you do. Finally if all truth were absolute there would be no contingencies. Look up contingent truth.
    – Logikal
    Mar 20 at 14:50
  • I come from the world of verification in CS and it is usually to stand some premises that can lead to a contradiction (as they can be inconsistent with each other): i.e. we have proven a statement is false by contradiction. Anyway, I have to read more about that contigency concept. Thanks!
    – Theo Deep
    Mar 20 at 14:53
  • 1
    "Therefore, to affirm that the truth is absolute is neither true nor false, therefore, it can be affirmed that the truth is absolute, contradicting the premise." Not clear... if it is neither true nor false, the affirmation that the truth is absolute does not contradict it. Mar 20 at 15:07

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.