This is a curiosity to me, and I'm more of curious what the surrounding arguments around the idea of Absolute Truth state. I know that, technically, this might not be "against the mainstream", but I felt this might be best to post it here, since it might be... I'm not sure what's surrounding this issue, hence my question.
I had once been in a philosophical debate with a friend. I was talking about the idea of Absolute Truth - that behind everything, there is truth. For instance: I have a table. This table is made of wood. These are facts. It is currently in my living room. Fact.
People can debate about this table across the world. Even though they can't see it, it's still there. Even if 6 billion people don't see it, it still exists. Even if 6 billion people don't acknowledge its existance, it still exists. Nothing changes this fact.
Thus, I was basically explaining that in my view, no matter all the beliefs, the conjecture, and the ideas, the truth is always somewhere in there. And it's not what we make of it, but how we perceive it.
Yet, this idea seemed to emit some resistance from my friend. I couldn't tell why. He can be VERY vague when he disagrees with something, and rarely goes into detail why.
So this is my question - why would anyone contest the idea of Absolute Truth? WHen I say it, am I unknowingly spouting off a different philosophical standpoint? Am I just confused as to the "true meaning" of it? Or what?
Any help is appreciated, thanks in advance.