| In the wisdom of Plato as a philosophy we cannot say there is no absolute truth, because such a statement would then become an absolute truth. Therefore contradicting it's self.
Here is my opinon.
We can assume that truisms are possible and can be shared or agreed upon by people from many backgrounds, secular and religious.
An absolute truth would be the "source provider" of those truisms that come to light, via our consciousness of those principles.
Each mind however digests and interprets what is being introduced into our thought steam from the provider source, and those interpretations generate a diversity of explainations based on each persons background of knowledge and experience.
The source-provider might be some sort of metaphyisical 'whatever' or whatever we term as "reality". Such truisms are realitive to our concepts of what reality is. Truth is relative to each circumstance being experience at the moment and if the circumstances change then so would the truths that are applied.
Realities that have the less amount of change are viewed as more absolute then realities that are in constant flux. Example: The idea that the sun will remain constant, would favor a concept that such is true, as the same sun has been around for millions of years, where as our local weather is in constant flux, or cycles, and so what is true would likewise change seasonally relative to our perceptions.
Our consciousness might be simular, both influenced by the sun and by progressive changes within the thought steam. Re: standing thought verses novelty or the randomness of thoughts. As in the Dylan song " a season for war and a season for peace".
The Source-Provider factor would reveal in our consciousness the best truism for each situation, each change has its own absolute truth which truth would not apply too another circumstance.
The unfolding realtiy is like our DNA, containing codes or intructions while also effecting an continued diversity, or individualisms, so noted as circumstances. |