Ying asked:

What is meant by absolute truths, and what are the implication for knowledge of absolute truths?

============

The term "absolute" means independent, pure, unrestricted(from Latin, which in its migration into
English gives you a hint: ab = un, solute = soluble, as in "insoluble"). Thus in speaking about absolute
truth, we mean something which is totally pure, uninflected, unconditional, unchangeable, not
influenced by theories and circumstances.

>From this, you might understand that such truths cannot be very many. For example, a scientific
theory is the truth as currently understood; but theories do change and cannot ever be absolute.
Similarly with many human truths, which may be influenced by the presuppositions active in a
particular society. And now you could go through the whole gamut of truths and find that all of them,
even the so-called black and white truths, are nothing more than truths understood as such for the
time being. I'm leaving out of reckoning here such truths as depend on facts: for example the fact that
the earth is a planet. You could say that this is a truth about the earth, but that's stretching the
concept of truth somewhat, because a fact and a truth are not really the same thing (a fact is
something that actually is or was the case, whereas a truth should be something that just is). I'm also
leaving out of reckoning such truths as are dealt with in instrumental algorithms, where a memory
chip may be loaded with a value "true" or "false", because again this is rather a thin type of concept
referable to mechanical evaluation and in any case completely dependent on the prior understanding
of the factuality (yes or no) evaluated by the device in question.

But this leaves us with very little, namely philosophical and religious truths. Now the latter qualify for
an absolute state without question — if you are believer. That God is absolute Truth (with a capital T)
is taken for granted in most religions, and if there is discussion about it, this is only in the service of
understanding its absoluteness, not the "fact" that it is. In philosophy, absoluteness is essentially an
Hegelian concept and refers to the spirit which endeavours, through the conquest of knowledge, to
arrive a synthesis of the totality of existence. Other metaphysical thinkers, for instance Pascal,
Spinoza or Spencer, have similarly embraced the whole of the universe or the total harmony of the
cosmos under the idea of an absolute truth. The concept, however, derives ultimately from the late
medieval philosopher Nicholas of Cusa, who coined it with just such a meaning in mind.

Now it is clear from the above that there is a certain amount of wishful thinking in all this. You don't
have to take my word for this, of course (I'm quite irreligious). But if the idea of "knowledge" means
anything at all, then absolute truths are not subjects of knowledge. Nor are religious ideas of
Truth-and-God genuine knowledge — even the medieval thinkers acknowledged this, for they
expended enormous amounts of energy to come to a concept of "knowledge" that enlists metaphor or
analogy, because they knew that God cannot be known. I would say, then, that absolute truth is a
metaphysical concept; hence the term "knowledge" is misapplied. Metaphysical truths are ideas we
might strive for, that we struggle with and try to understand even against all possibility of truly
understanding them. I would go so far as to say that in part, this is what philosophy is all about.
Wittgenstein wrote at the end of his Tractatusthat we should stop talking about things we can't
express in unambiguous words; it was a kind of counsel of despair, and clearly ideas concerning
"absolute truth" would fall under this stigma if Wittgenstein is accepted as having the last word on the
matter. But he doesn't. Even his antimetaphysical utterance reflects a metaphysical attitude and he
clearly understood this himself in just these terms.

Jürgen Lawrenz

Sydney

Well let me give my PERSONAL opinion.

'Absolute' truth is the opposite of relative truth (see http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/r/relativi.htm). It
is called absolute because of believing in one continuous (often limitless) truth. The debate about
absolute versus relative truth is often called the Popper-Kuhn debate. But the question is if choosing
sides is necessary, both ways of looking at truth have stronger and weaker sides.

Absolute truth or authoritarian knowledge seems to be necessary in the first part of education. At
some point though you have to go your own way, and then relative truth comes in the picture.

All present political systems are based on power and some kind of 'absolute' truth. Humanity at
present seems on a point of change.

Henk Tuten