Logical absolutes are
the building blocks of discussion and analysis. When seeking to
establish truth, all of our thinking must include the position that there are absolute
truths. We cannot have a rational discussion if there are no logical
absolutes because then our thinking would be
self-contradictory. As stated in the previous lesson (Three Laws of Logic), if I were to
contradict myself in a conversation, you would be right in pointing out
that I had made a mistake. Your observation would be accurate because
of the law of non-contradiction. (It is a law, not a recommendation) This is important for us to understand
because rationality, discovering truth, establishing truth, exposing error, etc., cannot be done if we are illogical.
Critical thinking, debate, exposing faulty thinking, etc.,
presupposes the existence of logical absolutes. This does not mean
that all people who try and be logical are aware that they are
necessarily presupposing the existence of logical absolutes. But
rational discussion is based upon these absolutes -- whether or not a
person acknowledges it.
Without a standard of rationality, we cannot expose what is irrational. Whether or not someone
recognizes this presupposition is irrelevant to the fact that the
foundation of rationality is built upon absolute
truth and logical absolutes. We cannot have a rational discussion if truth is relative. I
remember having a conversation with someone who told me that truth was
relative to the individual and that there were no such things is logical
absolutes. I then responded with the sentence "Blue sleeps faster than
Wednesday." I waited for his response. After a bit he finally asked me
what I was saying? I responded with something like, "I fly in grass
colored fishing barks." Of course, he made the comment that I was making
absolutely no sense, whereupon I responded that he was correct. If
everything is relative, I told him, then our conversation would have no
meaning. I told him that in order to have rational dialogue we have to
have a common truth, common absoluteness. If we don't have this we
can have no dialogue. Therefore, in order to have a rational
discussion, we must assume that there are principles of
logic on which we base discussions, point, counterpoint, etc.. I mentioned logical absolutes several times to which he
replied, "What are logical absolutes?"
Logical absolutes are
logical truths that are absolute. In other words, they are always true,
everywhere, all the time.
An example would be, "Something cannot bring itself into existence." We
know this is true because if something does not exist, it cannot have
any attributes and would not be able to perform any action. Bringing
something into existence is in action. But if something does not exist,
it does not have any attribute by which it might perform an action. If
it can't perform an action, nothing can be accomplished and it
could not bring itself in the existence. We can then see that the
statement "something cannot bring itself into existence" is an
Another example of a logical absolute is the statement,
"Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time in the same
sense." This should remind you of the law of non-contradiction.
Normally, when I bring this up to people who deny that there is such a
thing as absolute truth, I then remind them that if they were to point
out that I was being self-contradictory later, that they would have no
right of asserting such an absolute truth if the law of
non-contradiction was not valid. I tell them that they presuppose the
validity of logical absolutes in order to have a rational discussion and
to deny logical absolutes is, ultimately, irrational.
Therefore, if they say there is no absolute truth, then they undermine the very foundation of that person's own argument.
Besides, to say that there is no absolute truth is an absolute statement
of truth. The statement would be self-contradictory, therefore to
say that there is no absolute truth cannot be a true statement.
Do you see how important this is? What
I often do with people, usually relativists and atheists, is to
undermine their system of thinking. A relativist, for example, says that
all points of view are equally valid. But how is that possible if one
point of view contradicts another point of view? Both points of view
cannot be correct if they are mutually exclusive. This would violate the law of non-contradiction. An
atheist, on the other hand, cannot account for the laws of logic because
if there is no absolute mind (God) we cannot have absolute logic. (More
on this in the next lesson). By undermining the presuppositions of an
atheist (and a relativist), it is far easier to unravel his arguments.
Please understand that rational thought presupposes
absolute truth. We cannot have a basis for rational discussion without absolute truths
-- and these absolute truths include logical absolutes. If there were
no such things as logical absolutes, then everything would be relative
and no real truth could be established.