A stab at philosophical truth

 

You might be familiar with standardizing an argument.  I am having a lot of difficulty with this passage and just thought you could offer some insight.
The paragraph is:

Either truth is absolute or relative.  If it is absolute, then a true sentence is true for all persons, at all times, at all places.  If it is relative, then a true sentence is only true for certain persons, times, and places.  But it makes no sense to claim that all truth is relative, as the following will demonstrate.  If all truth really is relative, then it may be, relative to some persons, times, or places, that the following sentence is true:  "Truth is absolute."  But if all truth is relative, then this same sentencce cannot possibley be true.
What I have to do is decide if the passage contains an argument and if it does, standardize it by picking out the premises and the conclusion.
So far this is what I have, but it doesn't feel right to me.

A)     Question C contains an argument and can be standardized as such:

i) Either truth is absolute or relative.

ii) If absolute, a true sentence is true for all persons, at all times, at all places.

iii) If relative, then a true sentence is only true for certain persons, times, or places.

iv) However, if claimed that all truth is relative, the sentence “Truth is absolute” may be relative to some persons, times, or places.  But if all truth is relative, then this same sentence cannot possibly be true.

Therefore, it makes no sense to claim that all truth is relative.

i, ii, iii, iv are what seem to be the premises and "Therefore, it makes no sense to claim that all truth is relative" seems to be the conclusion.  Does this make sense to you, or am I way off course?

Thanks so much for looking at this.  If it is not something you are familiar with...no worries!

Premises that I see:

                                      

1)      The question is phrased as a polemic.  The states are assumed to be one or the other, but not a 3^rd, 4^th or 5^th.  For example, is it possible for a state to exist where Truth could be both relative and absolute?  Why must these concepts be considered in opposition to each other?  This is the initial premise.

2)      Everything that relates to Truth, must be a true statement.  All Truth is true. , makes the assumption that Truth (big T) is equivalent in some way, or derives from truisms.     If this were not the case, there is no way to argue Truth as an absolute, because the inconsistency of Truth being absolute or being flawed and therefore out of the argument.  So Everything must relate to truth as something that is true and not false.  Falsehood and Absolute Truth are really what should be in polemic.

4)      No quarter is given for different kinds of Truth, they aren't considered.  For example, there is Historical truth and Empirical truth.  Historical truth might correctly relay a lie that some character speaks or purports to be true.  So the assumption that Truth can have no falsehoods is a problem.  Empirical truth assumes that all that is true can be identified by the 5 senses.  But there are things that are true that lie outside the empirical boundary like: I love my kids.  This statement of fact is true, but there is no satisfying extrinsic ways to assess its validity, although some have tried.

5)      There is some sort of universality of Truth implied here that makes no room for Truth that changes.  Can Truth evolve?  Consider a stop light.  It is true the light is green, but not all the time.

6)      Truth could be states, that obeys quantum laws, especially in ways like Schrodinger cat.  Schrodinger proved that two opposite states could exist at one time, and that the state collapses to one of the two upon observation.   Each state is as true as the other simultaneously.

7)      ________________________________________

Those were some problematic assumptions. 

Now the argument: .  If it is absolute, then a true sentence is true for all persons, at all times, at all places.  If it is relative, then a true sentence is only true for certain persons, times, and places.  But it makes no sense to claim that all truth is relative, as the following will demonstrate.  If all truth really is relative, then it may be, relative to some persons, times, or places, that the following sentence is true:  "Truth is absolute."  But if all truth is relative, then this same sentence cannot possibly be true.  I am not convinced that this is proven: “relative to some persons the following sentence is true: “Truth is Absolute”, is what this is stating:

It assumes that Truth Can be true to some people as relatively absolute.  In other words, how can it be that for some people truth is absolute, if by way of opening definition Absolute Truth is in polemic with  “Relative Truth”. The premise assumes that each excludes the other. So then it could not be possible for the statement Truth is Absolute in a Relative way to some person since they are mutually exclusive to each other by way of a priori.   It is excluded by the premise. 

Another logical flaw includes the idea that Truth is on some sort of continuum from Absolute to Relative, when the a priori precludes it.  If truth is Absolute, then it exists off the continuum of relativity.  If this is true, then from the onset, from the first given, this shows that we are talking about entirely different concepts, but calling them both truth.

In my opinion the argument and conclusion does not remain true to the premise, or at least the alluded premises, which see Truth: Absolute and Relative--in opposition on a polemic, or affixed upon a continuum.  One assumes knowing relative truth in the most pure way causes one to know Absolute truth, when all the evidence shows that is unsubstantial.  It puts Truth on a continuum.  A continuum refutes the opening sentence, the first a priori—from the outset.  Because a continuum conflicts with the statement Truth is either  absolute or relative.  I think Absolute truth and Relative truth are across an event horizon from each other.  Otherwise there would be something in the argument that allows Absolute truth to exist as a quasi-relative truth across a sliding scale, instead of across an event horizon:  Allowing for relativity to approach it but never arrive.

In my mind this is resolved if we understand that Truth may be Absolute.  But our perceptions of Truth will always be relative.