Well, the thing is, there *could be* absolutes. But discernment
isn't always so simple. For example, if you hold to an
absoluteness of True and False, you've just replaced one
supernatural thing for another, artifacts of Platonism as
expressed via Aristotle: definer of Western Civ, but even as
expressed as far in the future as Aquinas, he STILL held to
Platonic idealism, as did 500+ years of Philosophers and
thinkers since in the West for the most part. This doesn't
invalidate them. That's the point - what's to invalidate? Some
people put Logic as foundational. But it's not. Some people put
mathematics as foundation. But it's not. What is?
Differences-between is what keeps everything from being the
same. Most differences between things are minor, which is why
analogies and metaphors work so well. Some differences are much
larger, in such cases it is harder to find analogies/metaphors.
But there's always some sense that one can make one between any
word pairs - if nothing else, that they ARE word pairs, but
usually one can do a little better than that. Point is: It's not
that there's necessarily no absolutes but as long as we have to
put conditionals in place to keep the absolutes in place,
they're not absolutes.
