The relativity of our knowledge doesn't rule out the existence of the absolute truth because objective truth is both relative and absolute.

It is absolute because it correctly reflects certain aspects of reality and relations within it; at the same time, the objective truth is relative because it never reflects reality fully and completely, and thus cannot embrace the entire content of the universe (whose truth content is inexhaustible).

Thus, although our knowledge is always relative, it is also objective and so absolute. Lenin wrote: "Human thought then by its nature is capable of giving, and does give, absolute truth, which is compounded of a sum-total of relative truths. Each step in the development of science adds new grains to the sum of absolute truth, but the limits of the truth of each scientific proposition are relative, now expanding, now shrinking with the growth of knowledge."

But, what is the difference between truth and absolute truth?

And, how do you know there is such a thing as 'absolute truth' to begin with? Or even 'relative truth'?

The material you have posted is plainly dogmatic since you just assert it with no attempt to justify it. It is as if you have received it from 'on high' on tablets of stone, just like religionists claim to have.

Classic a priori dogmatics.

And then you dialectical mystics have the cheek to tell us in the next breath that you never impose your theory on reality!

By the way, I do not expect an answer to my questions. It is clear from your use of language that you have never really given this much thought, over and above believing all you have read in the Dialectical Gospels. And we already know that you "do not think about things you don't think about".

Small wonder then that I call it your opiate -- something you accept on faith because the Dialectical Prophets revealed it all to you, packaged into nice easy mantras for you to repeat, mindlessly.

This is confusing. What's the difference between absolute truth and objective truth?

How does this make it absolute? And how is "correctly" determined?

Then how is it objective? So far it seems like you have claimed that absolute truth is objective and relative, that objective truth is absolute and relative, and that truth is relative. But I fail to understand how you differentiate between these terms, how any of this is justified, or what you actually mean. I am in dire need of clarification.

- August

August, it's no good asking Trivas, he never answers -- he just delivers the Holy Dialectical Gospel to us undeserving materialists.

Is there a relationship between truth and accuracy?

Accuracy is largely connected with measurement -- or rather it is ascertained by precise measurement --, and so it can only be used to set the parameters within which the truth or falsehood of an hypothesis or other empirical proposition is deemed to lie.

So, if a scientist has an hypothesis that an as yet unobserved object will have a mass of, say, 1.5985 x 10^12 kg +/- 0.1%, that sets the limits of accuracy [error bounds] of her predictions.

Of course, we speak about an accurate guess/prediction/description and the like, but then that is connected too with an after the event check. In that sense 'accurate' works rather like 'true', but with extra connotations connected perhaps with the detail given.

Our everyday observations about the world are not normally subject to accuracy constraints. So, if I say, for example, that the train to Manchester has just left the station, only an idiot would ask for its error bounds.

Absolute truth is what is true always and forever, objective truth is truth independent, outside of, one's mind.
Relative truth is what is true conditionally for a time. Objective I characterized above. Does that help?

Are absolute truth and objective truth contained within a greater truth? Are they mutually compatible? Exclusive?

Yes it does - but I am not finished questioning (see above).

- August

Trivas, once more: how do you know there are such things as 'absolute' and 'relative' truth?

[And, what is the difference between truth and 'objective' truth?]

That is, apart from your having found these timeless verities themselves in the Dialectical Gospels.

And thanks for proving yet again that you "do not think about things you don't think about".

---------------------

August, my apologies to you for saying that the Holy One here would not answer your questions; he obviously only avoids my queries because I do not respect him as The Prophet sent from the Gods of the Sacred Dialectic to enlighten ignorant humankind, and with great disrespect ask him blasphemous things he cannot answer.

Truth is knowledge of an object or phenomenon which corresponds to reality, reflects an actual state of affairs. As it corresponds to reality, true knowledge "does not depend either on a human being or on humanity..." IOW, true knowledge is determined by the outside world which exists objectively, independent of us.

Absolute and relative truth are different way of talking re the same objective truth. They are dialectically related, insofar as relative truth becomes absolute.

Ah, I was right. My lack of respect for the Gospel According to Trivas means I am verbote!

Either that, or St Trivas the Divine here does not know the answer to my basphemous questions.

I would make a distinction, dividing "objective truth" to humanitarian (or something) objective truth, and universal objective truth.

Since humans are too imperfect (hitherto) to be able to understand or know THE (universal) objective truth.

Mauroprovatos, how do you know that there is such a thing as 'objective truth' to begin with?

And what is the difference between 'objective truth' and ordinary truth?

I tried to ask Trivas, but he is sulking.

Then what is knowledge? As far as I understand, within the domain of epistemology "knowledge" has as a fundamental condition - "truth" (the other two conditions are belief and justification). So if epistemology is correct, how could "truth be knowledge of an object or phenomenon which corresponds to reality?" To say that one "knows" something is already to say that such a thing is true...

How can "knowledge" (which is dependent upon their being a subject/person/brain to "know") 'depend neither upon a human being or on humanity?'

But in this case wouldn't the "absolute truth" be synonymous with the "objective truth" and the "relative truth"? And if all these are the same, why differentiate?

- August

To ignore all the other discussion that has happened in the thread, here are my thoughts on the matter.

First, what is truth? What, you can't answer that without relating it to human existence? Then there is no objective truth. (By the way, Plato was full of shit.)

Second, while I personally think that there is an "objective reality" as such, it is pointless discussing it, because we can never access it. Our perceptions of the world and the universe are affected not just by our experiences, values and so on, but by more obvious biological factors, such as if we can see well (or at all), and so on.

Anyway, I'm not even sure if I addressed what I quoted, possibly because what I quoted doesn't even make sense.

Did I mention that Plato was full of shit? (And in this case, it seems, so is Lenin.)

The correspondence theory of truth is that something mental corresponds or reflects objective reality. Truth is the mental grasp of some aspect of reality. IOW, truth is in the mind, not in the object.
Because reality is independent of anyone's mind. Matter, whatever is known, exists objectively, independent of anyone's consciousness.
Yes, all truth is one, qualifying it as absolute or relative are just ways of helping us understand it better or looking at it from another angle. Often in the sciences different terms refer to the same thing.

Trivas:

And how could we/you know that if we/you cannot access 'objective reality' independently of thought/language?

If so, there can be no 'objective truth' -- which you have failed to show exists anyway.

And if: "Truth is the mental grasp of some aspect of reality" how could we ever know this if we cannot experience the world independently of our attempt to do so?

We cannot put this down to 'practice' either, since the results of practice are subject to the same contraints.

But, if this it true, then that truth is confined to your own mind. So, how do you know this relates to 'objective reality'?

How do you know this? To what does it 'correspond'?

But, by your own words, this 'same thing' is trapped inside your mind. So, how can anyone tell if they have the same notion of 'truth' as you?

By the way, I don't expect you to answer the above since you are still sulking.

AM:

Well, you seem to be giving us an objective fact about objective reality. If so, you at least seem to have "access" to this objective fact.

And if so, there seems to be no good reason to accept your declaration that we can never "access" it -- for, if you are right then we can "access" it; on the other hand if you are wrong, we can anyway.

Which just goes to show that Kant was right: when we try to do metaphysics, us humans just talk gibberish.

Heh, I had a feeling you would comment on my post. I didn't give an "objective fact", I gave an opinion, something quite different.
As for Kant, I can't (and that is a totally unintentional pun, which I'll leave because it amuses me) claim to have read anything by that author. But assuming the most commonest definitions of "metaphysics", it is mostly gibberish. (And I would have to question what other beings can talk about it without talking "gibberish".)

AM now:

AM earlier:

Looks pretty final to me.

How is this not your attempt to state an 'objective fact' about 'objective reality'?

Your not having read Kant just about says it all.