Arguments Against Relative Truth

              Those of you who read my blog way back in the day (some month or so ago, I mean) will remember that I had already made a post about relative truth which I deleted.  I deleted it because I found it highly personal and emotional, scribbled down by a teenage-like mind that was a little ticked off at, “The foolishness of the world,” as he called it.  But I do not want this blog to be full of essays that blow off steam.  I want it to be a highly systematic blog full of reason, common sense, and, when emotion is involved, it is contained.  A re-visit of the topic of relative truth with an older and wiser head on my shoulders has allowed me to make a much more level-headed analysis, and has allowed me to write a much more proper and systematic essay.

                I still hold that the idea of relative truth is absurd, but the reasons why are much better polished.  Furthermore, I do not mean “absurd” in an emotionally colored sense of the word.  I mean it literally.  Philosophically speaking, an absurdity is an idea built on two ideas which are mutually exclusive.  In other words, if idea A consists of “x” and “not x”, then idea A is an absurdity.  I argue that the idea of relative truth does just that.  You see, when someone says that truth is relative, they are, in fact, declaring a truth.  They might as well be saying, “It is true that truth is relative.”  But how can that be possible?  If it is true in any and all circumstances that truth is relative, then how can it be rationally affirmed that truth itself is relative when the truth that truth is relative isn’t a relative truth?  Go back and read that lest sentence as many times as needed.  Are you seeing the point?  If truth is relative, then the idea that truth is relative cannot be true; not in all circumstances at least, which is what those in favor of relative truth tend to argue.

                Now, of course someone can say that “this is relative” or “that is relative” and be speaking truth.  But remember that there is a fine line between declaring “this and/or that” to be relative and declaring truth itself to be relative.  Truth itself cannot be relative, else it would cease to be truth.  Of course certain things in the world are relative.  Opinions are relative.  But it is a huge, illogical leap to jump from relative opinions to relative truths.  Don’t mistake me further for being an enemy of Einstein’s theory of relativity.  The idea of absolute truth does not conflict with that theory.  Einstein merely declared certain truths to be relative; the length of objects, etc.  Besides, someone could very easily say, “It is true that the length of object A will change under B circumstances.”  Exact truths are still in play.  Einstein’s theory of relativity is a truth which itself is not relative.  You see the distinction?

                I realize this argument is rather short.  But at the core that is how I like it.  Short.  Concise.  To the point.  I never liked arguments that rambled.  People who changed history had not 60 years to do it, some more, some less, some even less.  They had barely any time considering the mark they made, and with that, POW, they were gone.  Get on the stage, make your point, and get off, I say.  So it will be with this argument.  And with that, POW, I’m gone.