One of the most misused concepts throughout history is the concept of "Absolute Truth."
Many speak of it with confidence, defend it fiercely, and exclude others in its name, yet the fundamental question is rarely asked:
What is truth anyway? And can any individual, group, or sect monopolize it?
Truth—in human consciousness and experience—is not a single solid block. Rather, it is the product of understanding, perception, experience, and a specific cultural, psychological, and cognitive context.
What I see as truth and build my convictions upon, someone else may see as falsehood, illusion, or heresy. This is not necessarily out of malice, but due to different angles of vision, cognitive tools, and life experiences.
The opposite is also true: what others see as a final truth and fight to defend, I may see as a myth, a deficient interpretation, or a fragile mental construct.
This diversity of truth is not an exception; it is the rule of the human experience.
The problem does not start with the variation of truths, but with the claim of possessing "The Absolute Truth."
A person who claims to possess the full truth—non-negotiable and unreviewable—unconsciously reveals a lack of understanding of what truth itself means. Truth, in its essence, does not fear a question, does not tremble before criticism, and does not need to suppress others to prove its existence. What requires intellectual violence and dogmatism is not truth, but a conviction terrified of collapse.
The claim of absolute truth is mostly an expression of a closed certainty rather than open knowledge. It replaces research with indoctrination, the question with a ready-made answer, and the mind with obedience. This is why many of those who raised the banner of "Absolute Truth" throughout history were often the ones practicing exclusion, excommunication, treason, and even murder in its name.
Even in major existential issues, we find no comprehensive human consensus.
The believer holds the truth of God's existence, or a creator of this universe, according to their vision, creed, and understanding of text or nature.
The atheist, in contrast, does not believe in this truth and sees existence from a different material or philosophical perspective. Each party deals with what they perceive as "truth," building the meaning of their lives, ethics, and choices upon it.
So where is the absolute truth here?
It is absent from consensus, present only in the conscience of each individual according to their conviction.
The question here is not: Who owns the absolute truth?
But rather: Does a human even possess the capacity to own it?
However, amidst this wide variation, there remains only one truth that humans have never disagreed upon, no matter how diverse their religions, creeds, sects, philosophies, denial, or faith: Death
Everyone believes in death.
The believer and the atheist, the religious and the secular, the philosopher and the simple man, the strong and the weak.
They may differ in explaining what comes after it, but they do not differ in its occurrence.
Death is the only absolute truth that needs no intellectual proof, no sacred text, and no philosophical debate. It is the truth that imposes itself on everyone without exception, and with it, all illusions of possession and transcendent certainty collapse.
Perhaps the awareness of this truth should not lead us to despair, but to cognitive humility. To admit that we understand the world only as far as our minds and experiences allow, and no more. That difference is not a threat, but a natural result of the multiplicity of human perspectives.
Truth is not what we shout the loudest, nor what we impose by force, but what remains open to understanding, review, and research without fear.
Anything else... is often not truth, but the illusion of truth.
The most dangerous illusion is not ignorance, but the belief that we have reached the end of knowledge.
And this is exactly the illusion of absolute truth.