That's not surprising. Absolute truth doesn't exist in the real world. Why do you expect humans to be born with innate knowledge of something that is impossible?
Well, one of the defining characteristics of humans and human intelligence is empathy--the ability, often involuntary, to imagine or predict how someone or something else experiences the world. Or at least the incredible extent and depth of our empathy. Mammals in general often display basic empathy, presumably a reflection of their mammalian offspring caregiving instincts, which in turn is presumably at the root of our own empathy.
It's not at all surprising our empathy is selective and context dependent, though. What's surprising is that we exhibit it to the extent we do, however inconsistently.
And if you truly believe that there exists no absolute truth then I invite you to walk off a cliff. It would be less of a leap than assuming that just because culture is complex and often inherently subjective that there is no absolute truth.
There are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares.
Definition is identity, self-reflective.
Absolute truth must exist. If there was no such thing as absolutely truth then it is absolutely true that there is no absolute truth. In other words, a logical contradiction.
Absolute truth exists relative to axioms. Given x, y. Even the law of identity is not metaphysically necessary; Deleuze argues that difference and repetition are prior to identity.
> Absolute truth must exist. If there was no such thing as absolutely truth then it is absolutely true that there is no absolute truth. In other words, a logical contradiction.
This argument still assumes absolute truth! It is made in the framework in which truths can be absolute as opposed to relative, but what I'm saying is that this dichotomy is invalid. The more accurate statement against absolute truth is not "it is absolutely true that there is no absolute truth" but rather "absolute truth is nonsense because absolute and relative truth are not different except within a defined set of axioms".
It's like having an absolute position in space. A position in space is only ever absolute given a frame of reference, because that's what defines it. Assuming an axiom is what defines an absolute truth. To ask someone what their position is without a defined frame of reference is nonsense.
> Absolute truth must exist. If there was no such thing as absolutely truth then it is absolutely true that there is no absolute truth. In other words, a logical contradiction.
We can play the metalogical game the other way too.
If all statements about X being true are language for "I the speaker believe X to be true but I understand the statement's truth is relative to my perspective", then all statements about truth are non-absolute, including this one without contradiction.
