Examining Whether "Absolute Truth" is a Reality

Is it possible to be certain about anything? Can we truly know for sure, without a doubt, anything at all? These kinds of questions have puzzled even the greatest thinkers for as long as the human race has existed. What is real? Is it what we can taste, see, smell? I would argue that there is an absolute truth, but perhaps not one we will ever find by the scientific method.

Post modernism for Beginners, by Jim Powell, is a epistemological survey and introduction to the idea of Post Modernism and what it entails: the quest for knowledge, the perpetual uncertainty, and the impact on science and theology that can result from Postmodernist thought.

We really begin to dig into the subject, however, with Richard Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. His argument boils down to the idea that there is no ultimate truth, and he pretty much stays with a relativist point of view for the entirety of his long and not-so-easy to read work. The main issue I would take with Rorty, of course, is that if there is not ultimate truth, how can we say that and know it to be ultimately true? The logic just doesn't add up in my mind. Rorty could say that logic is just a human creation, that it doesn't really exist and holds no meaning as far as truth is concerned, but it seems like he attempts from a fairly logical point of view. This weakens his argument, in my opinion. Rorty states that "edifying philosophy... can only be reactive...it falls into to self deception" (p. 378). He goes on to argue that this isn't a reason for abandoning philosophic discussion. Apparently, the philosophic way to describing our perceived reality still has some value, since it may work for some people.