“absolute truth” belongs in quotes.
in seriousness reflects the certainty of the person saying/writing it.
Certainty among humans is fundamentally flawed at its roots.
Is that statement, “Certainty among humans is fundamental flawed at its roots”, flawed?
Yes. Why? Because it’s possible that some certainties aren’t flawed.
To go there, one must investigate the nature of “belief” with regards to certainty. That’s where enters epistemology in Philosophy (if I’m not mistaken) and there are some pretty amazing work done in the “logic of belief” in analytical philosophy.
Yet at the root of the “logic of belief” is a certainty that there is some sort of stable ontology of meaning and as far as I know, humans write dictionaries.
So, there you go. I walk confidently on firm sands but I don’t mistake the firm sand for an unbreakable rock.
Yet, there’s a level of abstraction above what I wrote. I tie “absolute truth” to the certainty of the belief of the speaker / writer.
Yet what’s that? A narrative.
Is that the only way to tell the story of “What is absolute truth?”
Some tell the story of absolute truth in terms of logical formulations.
You’ll often hear them say, “By definition” as if it is a magic demigod, this definition. But what brings the defining? And here we are, back at my preferred narrative.