I have been struggling with the concept of the availability of truth. Now many things have been written of these subjects, some I've read, some I havent, and some ideas have come to me through mediums other than paper. And yet, it was not anything that I had read or heard that had particularly set me off the path of intellectual security and into into the hazy moors I find myself in now. The real problem is that nothing can truly be known. I really believe that. My second problem, one compounding upon the first, is that I dont particularly trust the concept of faith.
I suppose that I will start with the first problem at this point. How do we gain knowledge? How do we find reality and truth? Our senses? Our emotions? Something more? On one hand language is surely an inadequate tool to convey truth. How can a couple of syllables really describe an abstract concept? and we come to the table with the presuppositions that language means the same thing to one as it does to another. And yet, language what we use to find truth. Yes, we have abstract thoughts and feelings, but when we try to analyze them in our minds we again have to rely on
words, language, symbol or code. So essentially, if language cannot fully ever express anything with any certainty of objectivity, nothing can truly ever be known. But I digress, I didnt mean to bring up this question of language and truth... that is not really the point. It is not even "the issue." It is just one of the reasons that I have despaired when it comes to knowing truth. But there are many others. Another is merely experience. Looking back, I do not think that any questioning has ever found any answer. All my questions have brought me are more questions.
There was a time when all I wanted was pure ignorance. I idolized it, and to be honest I still do. When you believe that there are no answers, then questioning itself is an anachronism of reason. For months I wallowed in my own despair. In a way I want to think of myself as liberated. As one who has been able to through off the chains of ignorance, open my eyes and see the presumptions and erroneous beliefs I held and as one who has been able to grow and question. And yet, over time I have become incensed with envy towards the naive. Those very persons I loved to despise for their fundamentalism and close-mindedness are the very picture of peace when put next to me. If truth is all in the eye of the beholder (which I dont really believe, I think there is objective truth, I just dont think it can be known... which is depressing), then those people who believe that they have found something are the ones that have. I am the one enslaved by my questioning, they are the ones that are free to believe within their framework of ignorance. In fact the only thing that I can say to truly believe, and I mean this, is that ignorance is indeed bliss. If I were going to have a wish it would not be that I would find answers, it would be that I would not have any questions.
comments:
Jenn said...
Gustav Flaubert once said, "To be stupid, selfish and have good health are three requirements for happiness. Though if stupidity is lacking, all is lost".
-----
Anonymous said...
if you were a philosophy major, you would know the answers by now.
kidd
3:14 PM
---------
Manny Jr said...
one question, "is it true that you can't know any truth?" If it is not possible to know truth then how do you know that that is a true statement?
----------
Ryan said...
Therein lies the paradox doesnt it. If the statement were true then I could cease to search, yet at the same time if it were true then truth would be knowable therefore findable and worthy of pursuit right? So either way searching or not searching is the solution to non-findable truth is it not? Which is all very bizarre. But in the end it just turns into a game of "could god make a rock big enough that he could not move"
-----------
marta said...
the aswer is NO. could god sin?
2:25 AM
----------
kenaka said...
I think your focus is pretty screwed up in this area. You really have to define a few things and position yourself before asking such a complex question (as Manny pointed out, YOU can't really ask it yet, it's not a paradox in your case, its utterly absurd). Philosophy is the science that goes for that question in a constant and serious way, you should read some more there to get in a better position for solving it yourself. I just read the first chapter of Spinoza's "Ethica" last night and would recomend you go back to the 17th century like that to begin seriously thinking about the question of truth. If there really is no way to know truth (at all) there's no reason for you to go on this search (I can't see it at least).
Some would say that the mere ability of having the concept of truth makes it possible, there's your tie-in with language.
In other words, I think you're wrong in your way of seeing the issue, although I agree with some points, such as their being objective truths. How we understand them, however, is a very difficult thing to solve. But if they are there, is logically follows that we have a capacity of knowing them, even if it's like Rumsfield's "Known unknowns". The question, therefore, is how much we can know about this unknown. When can we begin to take an idea, label it as clear and distinct and then carry on from that newly adquired Truth to the next? There has to be something true and constant enough to be able to hold that.
Sorry for being so long, I love this issue...
4:40 AM
-------------
Jenn said...
Just a question to both you (Ryan) and Ken, where do the spiritual realm and logic truly intersect? Are you really trying to define a god by using logic? Isn't God supralogical?
6:17 AM
--------------
Ryan said...
Well, Yes and No, kenny.
First of all I dont follow your logic in your statement "But if they are there, is logically follows that we have a capacity of knowing them".... yes, ok, I agree that if we have a concept of Truth, then it must come from something. But it doesnt follow that that something exists in real life. We have concepts of many things, absolute beauty, unicorns... but it doesnt mean that the actually exist in any reality more extended than the one inside of our mind and the theoretical.
Second, you seem to agree with my point about the impossibility of gaining any view of objective truth. so it follows that the question ends up being not "CAN it be known" but "how much can be known." Yet here lies the problem. It is suddenly a question of quantity and turns into the story of 'The 9 Blind Men and the Elephant' where each man felt a different part of the beast and interpreted it in his own way (one touching the tail and imagining that the elephant was like a snake, another touching a leg and assuming the elephant was much like a tree trunk, etc...). Except that in our case it is a the story of "The Billion bling humans and the Truth," where each of us stumbles around in the dark grasping onto whatever it is that we happen to be lucky enough to find, but never really able to come away with the real picture of what the "elephant" is because we are too insignificant to grasp the entire beast. So there is my true despair. Even if we grasp small pieces (subjective truth) we will never really come away with a clearer image, only more questions raised by others who have grasped different aspects of truth. So I come away with my desire for ignorance... either to be the only one who has touched the elephant and therefore believe my own experience completely, or to have never bumped into the "elephant" at all.
PS: rock and roll! this discussion is moving along!
---------------
marta said...
So the elephant exists, but your incapable to know it entirely. That’s why you’re gonna spend your whole life analysing it (because you cannot abandon yourself to a faith you don’t trust in, of course) without getting it? Well, not a very original way of evading the responsability of belief.
Even if you had never touched the elephant, the elephant would still exist. So, be grateful that you know that at least. Of couse, we all would prefer to follow our own made-up beliefs. Would be easier (not really). We wouln’t have to humble ourselves and admit the superiority of any God. Isn’t that our true problem? Luckily, we have. We ow thankfulness, humbleness and praise to the one who didn’t create a stone big enough so even himself couln’t move, but died for us without any apparent reason but love (because I assume that you know that without that death, we would be lost by now). So I think THIS is the point.
By the way, excuse my crap English.
-----------
kenaka said...
"but it doesnt mean that the actually exist in any reality more extended than the one inside of our mind and the theoretical." Exactly the point, that truth would be the extended stuff in our mind and the theoretical, truth is theoretical after all, it's not a thing you can touch (like an elephant, although you just try touching an elephant...plus they stink).
I don't buy the posmodern deal that any truth is your truth if it works (they couldn't really say that because "works" would imply truth sort of). We agree there is an objective truth. We agree that as humans our brains don't have the ability of grasping it completely, even as a collective (no synergy principle in that case). So what is left? If this is the only presupossitions we are allowed to make, as you said, not much. We can only touch certain truths and feel great about them every once in a while.
However, answering Jenn's question in the meanwhile, Christianity (and some other religions) offers another option. It's called revelation. God is that objective truth (this is an old truth) and in Him is all the Truth. According to the Judeo-Christian tradition and the Bible this God has revealed enough of himself (the objective Truth) through words and his son and the Holy Spirit. To get to this Truth we have to believe (as a choice, not a conclussion to a logical discussion) and accept his Lordship. Then, suddenly, this that seemed to foolish becomes a Truth that has set us free and we cannot deny. That is the amazing thing about the foolishness of Christianity.
I like philosophy because it leads me to see that God is impossible to understand. We get close but the whole truth is only in Him and there is no way to get to it (and the life and the light, by the way) except through his son.
Yes, it is worth discussing how much of the Bible has been manipulated, or wrongly translated, or if we are serving Him in the right way...but without an initial step forward and, practically, blind trust, there can be no faith (please note the difference between trust and faith).
Did any of that make sense? At times it seems clearer and at other times I don't understand a thing.
11:07 AM
-------------
kenaka said...
I like Marta's concept of "responsibility of belief", it sort of flows with that Pascal text that I sent you.
I also would like to say that I understand your desire for ignorance. So did Solomon in Ecclesiasteces (however you write that). It seems from the Biblical story that somehow we cursed ourselves with knowledge, some of us, unfortunately or not, get more than others. That entails a responsibility to choosing wisely (thus Indiana Jones, hoho). Ryan, you have been given a particular ability to adquire knowledge and wisdom, life in that sense will be tougher on you than others, so will the adquiring of it.
---------------
Manny Jr said...
A. How in the world does Kenny have all this time to leave a thousand comments on the blog...jeje
B. I'm with Kenny's point about relativism. It seems that the more we say that we all have a different perspective (subjective) of truth, we have effectively stated that we believe there are no absolutes. Unfortunately in making this statement (even if subconciously) we have shot down our own argument becuase to make such a statement is to affirm absolutes if the original statement will be regarded as a true statement. Therefore if not everything is absolutes, then there have to be some absolutes and thus those absolutes are must be true.
C. I still think Real Madrid is better than Barca. (sorry, tangent, ok back to the subject)
D. Therefore since there have to be absolutes, then those absolutes exist somewhere which indicates the reality and truth of those absolutes.
E. I think the ultimate question beyond these is "Why is there something instead of nothing?" Add that to your list of questions. (I guess this doesn't have to do with anything either but I thought I might throw that in anyway because I love to talk about theology, too.)
-------------
kenaka said...
I'm sorry to say this, but Manny has proven that everything he says is absolutely wrong after giving his point C (that Real Madrid is better than Barcelona). If someone believes that...theology is quickly out of the question, or any other subject that involves logic (I guess you could still go into psicoanalysis...)
---------
Jenn said...
I say ditch all knowledge through logic and go hemitize (shall we make that a word?) yourself in a desert and just let God reveal herself/himself to you.
Having gotten that out, I have a question about this elephant of yours. So you, Ken, Manny, Marta and I are all blind men and women. We are all grasping at this enormous elephant. Some are screaming "logic" some a screaming "faith/trust" but none of us has the whole picture. Will grasping a part of the elephant (as much as you can during your lifetime) be enough, or will you give up, knowing that you can never know it all and that other people know different parts?
This is not a battle any of us can win for you. So, know that I am on the sidelines rooting for you, praying for you and thinking with you.
-------------
Ryan said...
haha, whoah, I think this is the most comments I have ever recieved. Online or in real life....
OK, some of you misunderstood me. The issue isnt relativism. I think that is crap. I belive in absolute truth. No question. What I am questioning is whether it can be known, which it seems we have established that it cannot ever be fully grasped by humans. So again, the questions seem to be (to me):
"if it cannot be fully known, what is the point in trying to know it?"
or
"Does seeing only one skewed, miniscule, out of perspective piece of the truth really woth anything (think seeing only one pixel in a 1280x854 jpg)."
and the final question
"How can anyone who calls themselves an honest seeker of truth still continue to stand by barça in light of madrid's obvious superiority (in the cosmic sense)?"
PS: I'm not just trying to be impossible with this issue. It is simply a huge question that I have that I cant really seem to find an answer.
-------------
Manny Jr said...
ok, I think I understand a little better what you are saying. And I think my response is that we have an innate desire for truth. Though we cannot fully know the entire truth because it is beyond us, we can come to know the source of truth who has revealed what truth we can know for now. (I think Kenny already said this so I am just concurring with him.) I also am agreeing with Jenn, we can't win this for you, but I think we are all praying for you.
------------
Jenn said...
Are all of my comments invalidated becuase I'm ambivilent about both Madrid and Barca? (Be a good friend and don't tell Charles)
---------
marta said...
and if you loathe football?
7:23 AM
-----------
kenaka said...
Marta, you don't loathe football, you just have to have faith in it and find your true inner feelings (I'll teach you next time we're together).
I agree with Manny and answer Ryan's second question:
"Does seeing only one skewed, miniscule, out of perspective piece of the truth really woth anything (think seeing only one pixel in a 1280x854 jpg)."
With a YES, absolutely!
I think it's a lot like what the CTS (Canyelles Training School on how to seduce and manage women) says: "We will never understand women, but the moment we stop trying, we have lost the battle."
I find it kind of the same with the meaning of the universe and of life (except Monty Python, they had it down).
-----------
Erin said...
Haha, wow! I just read through all of that. I think you've really pushed a button with this one, Ryan.
Here are some honest thoughts I have been having lately:
1) At this point in my life, the only thing I know as absolutely true is this: that God exists, that God is good. The implications of all of this are in the works. :o)
2) In my life, I have found, that there will be no point in pursuing absolute truth for its own sake. The pursuit of Truth seems to be more of a Greek idea than a Jewish one. When Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life"...he addressed this Gentile idea of Truth by saying all of it lies within him. This is just as nuts as God saying to Moses, "I am that I am."
I think the only conclusion I can come to from this, is that our God is a God of experience. In experiences (in the bible, but in my own life as well) he makes demands of man; he expects of man to play a role in the world, in time, to further the revelation of his glory, his presence.
3) But, as you may have noticed, experiences are rife with paradox. One person can experience the burning bush and think it means nine different things from the next person. It may be true that calling the burning bush a crocodile is the most untrue thing.
This is the point: a Greek ideal says that absolute truth can be known absolutely. A Jewish ideal of truth says that truth is known in paradox, in polarity: God is in search of man, but Man, is in search of God.
More and more, I see humanity's ability to be near-sighted. I must attempt to see and believe beyond my direct ideological circumstances.
4) I believe the yearning for truth in our hearts has been planted there to get us to ask questions. Questions without answers are inherent in the human condition. Questions create relationship, they create trust, they create faith: believing without seeing.
5) God has made a rock that he WILL not move: it is man's free will. I've probably mentioned it before, but this is what my senior thesis is on. It's been driving me up a wall. But I'm pretty sure (haha), that God created man with free will and WILL not move our will for us. He can move his presence into our lives, speak through our experience of it, through revelations or the lack thereof, but ultimately, only we can make the proverbial leap of faith.
6) The leap of faith is a process. C.S. Lewis said after conversion that he was the "most reluctant convert in all of England". If Lewis died with a bit of doubt in his heart I believe the experiences of his lifetime tell what he believed, more than empirical data, moral diatribes, and logical arguments could. I think, Truth is like trust: you do not believe something until you have acted upon it. I do not trust a bridge until I walk over it.
"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life..."
Having no idea if any of my thoughts have made sense, I will simply end with this: that every year after finishing a journal I read through it again and I wonder at how wrong I was about all the things I was sure I knew.
Yours TRULY, hehe,
erin
---------------
kenaka said...
I have the exact same experience when I read through my journals, let alone blogs a week old. It's amazing how little we know when we are sure we know it all.
The concept of Faith has been pretty well presented by Erin. I think you could say that would be the strange, paradoxical combination of reason and experience. Faith is that step that this God requires, before having defined the burning bush, maybe even before having defined himself. I think a degree of faith is absolutely necessary before you can actually receive a revelation of who He is. Its a catch22 thing almost, there's no other way out: you either wager one way (towards God) or the other (away), I can't seem to see any other real option. True agnosticism as far as Christianity is concerned, can only be a stage, not a foundation to build a life on.
No comments:
Post a Comment