For a reason unknown to me, the concept of a king alone aggros people on the board. Or, at least, it had brought about aggro in the past. What is absolute? A monarchy where the king is solely king and this authority is inviolable and typically unfettered and the top of temporal hierarchy. That is the easiest way I would clarify it. The rule of the monarch, at the top of the hierarchy, with the other members of the hierarchy. As Maistre defined it, 'a centralized aristocracy'. It isn't limited to Western civilization. Absolute monarchy comes in different forms. It has manifested itself throughout the ages. The sole role of monarchs as sovereigns is nothing new.
>absolutism is all about 'arbitrary' power, 'totalitarianism', 'big gubmit', 'the modern state', 'social contract theory'.
This is a big misconception. People tend to throw around a word salad without really defining their terms. Throwing words like 'authoritarian' and 'totalitarian' as if they were one and the same annoys me to death. Is monarchy an 'authoritarian' structure? Indefinitely, I think, because the institution relies on authority of great spiritual foundation, culture, justice, and the family. To despise all authority is to deprive all people of rights, actions as fathers, and their own self-autonomy. Authority is spread across the board, not limited to only the government, but the entire state of sovereignty. Parents have authority. People have authority over their property. Teachers have authority over students. People have authority in the things they produce and create. Authority is in initiative and intuitiveness. Authority is nothing limited to the state, but it does consist with hierarchy and control. Sovereignty extends to the entire state of living in a particular realm, not limited or separated to the government. It is propriety and authority across the board, vertical within a hierarchy and the dominion of monarchy, church, and people. It is right and wrong because the character of monarchies is so unrestricted to ideologies, even absolutism itself, that it really depends on the character of the monarch.
>absolutism is modernism/Enlightenment
This is right and wrong. It depends on how you view what is 'modern' and what is 'absolutism'. It doesn't begin in the 'Age of Absolutism'. It doesn't begin with social contract theory and Thomas Hobbes. That is another way of viewing absolutism and the modern state. Yes, Thomas Hobbes innovated social contract theory (which was a thing before Hobbes and something Hobbes reversed on Whigs who used it; it didn't come from nowhere). Most critiques of absolutism are pertinent of Hobbesianism/social contract theory and the concept of the modern state through social contract theory. This is just another fashion, so-to-speak, of the absolute. King Louis XIV is said to be the quintessential absolute monarch, but is a far cry from being the 'first absolute monarch'. And not to forget that in Christian hierarchy and understanding of monarchy, it goes back way before King Louis XIV and Bossuet (who didn't even espouse social contract theory). The Divine Right of Kings goes back to the Biblical Times, King James I, and then Bossuet. But even before King James I, it was formalized and understood in coronation ceremonies and the rudiments of Christendom with Emperors and the Church Fathers. Outside of Western civilization, the oldest of monarchies still had strident similarities to the absolute and the spiritual bedrock of wielding divine authority.
>absolute monarchy is tyranny
This is another matter of debate and how you view monarchies. Most people suggest that monarchy in general is just tyranny. I could say that democracy is anarchy, aristocracy is oligarchy, and monarchy is tyranny. It is counter-productive. If a king cannot have what is absolutely his own, where do ordinary people stand in having their own? And propriety no longer inviolable. It isn't 'arbitrary' or 'totalitarian'. There is always the potential for what is evil no matter what you draft. Because what is arbitrary is so far from absolute, it is impossible for it to enslave everyone arbitrarily, especially without repercussions not to mitigate the sacred characteristic of monarchy, but it is subject to reason and regicide should be avoided
>absolute monarchy is throne and altar only
Maybe ideal for some. Maybe not for those who want more government. Like how presidents have cabinets, monarchs have their choice of advisors, aristocrats, churchmen, prime ministers, chancellors, and even representatives. Absolute monarchy is not 'all doing', but simply 'all powerful' as an authority built on hierarchy and temporal power and spirituality. It is more of a status as being a 'king'.
>absolute monarchy cannot be constitutional
This is untrue. Absolute monarchies can have constitutions. Meji Era Japan is a good example.