This is a little pet hate of mine. So many times I’ve seen “absolute” used to reach toward some proposed finality.

It can be used reasonably well within rigidly set limits though. I think many fall prey to its wiley ways due to the seduction of logic. Sadly they forget that “abstract” use cannot be applied on a 1:1 with experiential being (human living).

For the “mystically” inclined it may be useful to view the term “absolute” as an artifact of language and look into the etymology. To see the term as meaning “solute,” an ocean of set limits, makes the meaning easier to handle intuitively. Within an ocean of established and set rules we can use the term “absolute”; meaning what is absolute can, and does, apply to every corner of said ocean - but remember, the ocean is not the universe!

A solution is a liquid. It can move around fill many corners. If viewed in this sense the “Absolute” can “mystically” be played with as a constant that seems to change, yet the “change” is merely due to perspective not some ubiquitous mystical field (as we’d not logically be able to perceive that which remains “unchanging” given that “perceiving” requires “change” - upon which note it may be useful to splice in the term “nascent” and be done with the semantics!).

The point you're making is true of only some but not all cases. In the discussion on morality, it was useful to distinguish between moral relativism and moral absolutism. That is, what is good relative to what so-and-so thinks and feels, or what is simply good. There is no simply good. It's all relative. — S

Sure. I don't want to ban adjectives, and your example illustrates the difference quite clearly. Personally i would want to include what so-and-so is along with their thinks and feels., but is suffices for meaning to be added rather than mere emphasis that you make a distinction between absolute and relative. Once you say something meaningful, I can see where you are wrong. But still, you could have managed this more clearly by saying that what is good is always an orientation of a thinking feeling (and Material?) subject. So we can always disagree about it. And Johnny Godbotherer, can say that God's orientation is universal cos He made us in His image, or whatever. So while I'm complaining, so you don't feel left out, I'll suggest that 'isms are nearly always straw men, useful only for waving in the general direction of stuff one doesn't want to address.

But what is to be made of this? Is truth actually truth? Absolute truth is impossible.

Already there is truth, actual truth and absolute truth, and that's before we start. "If the world could all agree (on everything) there would be what I would call 'absolute truth'." we learn from the op. It would be superfluous even to comment, 'yeah, I know', because everyone would already know everything. Language would cease. Even our pig ancestor would be scratching his head a bit, wondering why he is locked up in the lounge, while this stuff is called "interesting".

Just found a 'purely objective' and an 'absolute proof' among my posts since my decrying of all things emphatic-adjectival. :cry: