That's all, branch off if you want. :D

That depends on the "truth" you're talking about. Abstract truths are often relative, but concrete truths, truths that have evidence that can be reproduced, are absolute.

Humans exist. That statement can be debated, and has been, but for the most part, "humans exist" is an absolute truth. If we didn't exist, I couldn't be here to type this. And that result is reproduced all the time: people type all the time, in this example.

Eating dogs is disgusting. This is a relative truth. While most people will agree to this, especially in "Westernized" cultures, there are actually some cultures that eat dogs all the time. Dogs are considered a delicacy here, so the statement would not be true to them. It is relative.

Really, "relative truth" is almost interchangeable with "opinion".

-IMP ;) :)

"Truth" is an idea, which legitimizes particular knowledge. (That is, it is a particular qualifier for knowledge we ought to believe) Knowledge is the collected data and analysis of the human mind/ and culture at large. Knowledge is a product of human beings.

The question "Is 'truth' absolute or relative?" is difficult to answer because it denies this underlying quality. TRUTH IS AN IDEA WHICH QUALIFIES KNOWLEDGE as LEGITIMATE. For instance if I claim that a particular that "Proposition X" is TRUE on "Grounds A," and my audience actually accepts Proposition X as true, then Grounds A have legitimized the proposition as true.

The typical answer to our question, "Is 'truth' absolute or relative?" is that a "positive truth" (scientific/empirical) is absolute and a "normative truth" (value) is relative. This assessment is the result of the methods used to both manufacture the knowledge and to verify it.

A positive truth or "fact" is manufactured using a scientific method, or observation, and verified by "evidence." (A water molecule is made of H2O.) A normative truth or "value" is conceived in the mind of a person or a culture, and verified by society, reason or experience. (Texas is a state.)


Not So Simple

The problem underlying a positive or factual form of truth is that the evidence which one uses to verify a given hypothesis is always questionable because it will be based on some form of normative value. Science searches for "Results." Results are the observations of co-dependent related events. That is to say, One observes action A in the presences of variables(1 through X). Infections are killed in the presence of penicillin. Therefore, penicillin cures infections. Science is assessing the truth of a pattern in reality. (or so it claims) Science observes the correlation of Cause and Effect. And then makes the leap that the events are truly linked, and will be every time the two occur in actuality. For example, Water will boil at 100 C (at sea level) every time water is boiled. Therefore, the "boiling point" of water is 100 C. The problem is that I can never "truly know" that the two events will always occur together. I can't legitimately "know" that the sun will rise tomorrow. I don't know for sure that it is true. Therefore, faith is required to hold the correlation as legitimated (true). There is an underlying doubt. Subjectivity underlies all positive truth. The particular truths or meanings we assign to objects in reality are based on our relationship to the object. Things are as we perceive them, we cannot know things in themselves.

Normative truths essentially rely on social relations and recognition. For example, the borders of the United states, do not exist in the positive or empirical sense, there is no actual (sensuously detectable) line out there, the boundaries are socially and mutually recognized. These days normative truths have been closely linked with the social constructionist movement, and therefore thought to be relativists. Normative truth is just as important for human existence as empirical truth. Without them we couldn't have culture, or social adaptations that make society even possible. The influence of normative rules is discussed based on a famous experiment in which a subject was placed in a room, where other people would do or say something incorrect, and the subject would agree or mimic the behavior, because of the importance placed on normative rules by the mind. We observe what others do and deduce/interpret what reason they are doing it. But we assume that if everyone is doing it, it must be useful or "true." If one person sees a "ghost" or has a specific hallucination, we would say they were crazy, but if everyone one around you was witnessing it, you might seriously question your sense of reality. There are no universal normative truths, however, there are some pretty common human normative practices, such as music, sharing, family units (of some kind) etc.

The fact/value or positive/normative truth distinction has been called into question, by many philosophers. Many criticize that Plato did not observe the distinction, by claiming that eternal forms were literal objects. In "modern times" the post-modernist movement claims the distinction is "loose" or "slippery," because positive truth based explanations may also support the same behavior or action, as normative based explanations.

For instance, Why do we brush our teeth? A postivitist (so to speak) would say its because it will preserve our oral health. A normativitist would claim that while that is true, people might really brush their teeth, because we live in a society which values the "beauty" of white teeth. So which is the real basis for the belief?

That is for each of us to decide, I suppose. If the truth of the world is a made up story which organizes our knowledge in a particular way in which we relate to that world, both physical and social, where does that leave the "Real" validity of truth. There are many truths, both positive and normative. Even if all truth is "incomplete" or even "self-undermining" in some abstract sense, for me , I can accept that the word "Red" refers to a "Color" whose meaning might be totally a product of my own senses, and/or might be handed to me through a socially constructed idea via language. Truth is a legitimized belief, but we don't legitimize certain knowledge for no reason at all, we do so with some warrant. I mean its a good thing that I recognize that a red light means stop. Or that I brush my teeth in the first place. I don't need an absolute version of the world, and whatever degree of normative relativity there might be, truth for me is merely functional to my being in time and space. I believe that the truth is "at best a partially told story" but since my story, and the story of the history and culture in which I exist, and the relation between the two, is all I can have, I must learn what I can from it, and reflect and ponder on what I think I know. Most of all I must live it that "truth."

It is in the act of valuing, of being, that produces the actual truth. For Hegel, "Truth" reveals itself through becoming, over the course of our lives, and through history. Schopenhauer, says the "truth" of world, lies within our own self, and we need to look within, and see the world as "will to be." Nietzsche says that "truth" is a goal, which we work toward, through our will to power; "the values a community strives to articulate are not as important as the collective will to see those values come to pass. The willing is more essential than the intrinsic worth of the goal itself." Sartre says that the story of our lives is for us to create, and truth lies within that story, all we can do is make choices with whatever knowledge we have, and take responsibility for those choices. Because of this, the world is absurd. We are merely "thrown" into it, and we can only do our best to make some kind of sense of it.

The world is getting smaller, as our level of consciousness is raised by our communication abilities, the debate of Universal vs Relative truth has become a major question of our age. But that is because it leads us to deeper more important understanding, and presents us with new questions. Is there one truth or many truths? Is truth eternal or temporal? Is it immutable or dynamic? Is it whole or incomplete? For each of these, a new journey must be traveled, and our inquiry must continue.

Truth can only have meaning in an empirical sense: ie. "I just saw the dog eat the cat" "Yeah, that's true." Anything else, ie. apriori is just a sorry excuse for philosophy. I don't like circular arguments. unless you're using truth in a wacky, nonconventional sense like heidegger, ie. the "truth" of being, the "truth" of art, which if i understand correct, is establishing the relation between.