How do philosophers reconcile the paradox, "There is no absolute truth"?

Question

If it is true then it is false. Is it just ignored as a quirk of language?

Answer 1

It is false. There are absolute truths. For example: A = A

So it's not really a paradox, it's just counter-intuitive because it is logically invalid.

Answer 2

there are levels to truth, and you can percieve things from different points of view, thus the truth changes depending upon how and where you look at it.

example~ lets say the absolute truth is the oneness of the entire universe as a whole. the inclusion and conglomeration of everthing, including the nothingness of space.

then you take the perspective of an individuation of consciousness ( a human being for example) who really only knows what he has experienced, learned in school, etc, and ask them if time travel is possible. they will most likely answer no, i don't believe so. but then ask another individuation of consciousness like albert einstein, who would say- yes based on what he knows about the laws of physics, it is possible. or if you could ask another individuation of consciousness , a completely different being, the answer and perspective will change. they will have their own truths about it.

if you could take the perspective of the collective- the all of everything, the oneness itself, the answer would be :

there is no time- only now.

this would be the absolute truth...but not the experience of the individual.

i believe there is an absolute truth- we are just too small to grasp the entirety of it. we have very limited perspective.

*peace

Answer 3

I think your problem lies in needing to define what you mean by "absolute truth".

What would absolute truth mean? 100% true? In physics and math, any law to which you can provide any counter-example is considered errorneous. For example: G(m1)(m2)/r^2 is the law of gravity. It says that every bit of matter in the Universe attracts every other bit of matter with a force equal to a universal constant (G) times the product of their masses divided by the square of the distance between them. If you can find a case of an object which is attracted to every other object except for objects in Dayton, OH, for example, then you have proven the law incorrect.

Also, there is less paradox here than you might think. Let's rearrange the statement a bit to something I think you're trying to say:

"No statement is completely true."

IF that statement were evaluated as true, then the statement itself would be false. However, if you evaluate the statement as false, then it implies that there exists SOME statement which is completely true, but it does not imply that it, itself, is such a statement.

Therefore, the statement resolves as false without creating a paradox.

Answer 4

If "There is no absolute truth" that would be considered an absolute truth, thus the statement is false, but absolute truth does exist. If there is absolute truth, that statement would be considered a part of it. Thus, there is absolute truth, we just do not know about it, except that it is.

Answer 5

Wait a second is it an absolute truth that theres no absolute truth, if it is then youre wrong and if its not how do you know its right and why should i agree

Answer 6

They don't.....They just endlessly talk about it.....That's WHY they are philosophers!!