Nature of Truth¶
Our journey begins by seeking truth, making sense of the world, seeking answers to the most fundamental of questions: What is real?
How do we know what is real?
The philosophically-inclined might add: Why is there suffering and death? What is the purpose of life? Is the world we perceive real? Is it all a dream? Is it a delusion from a demon? Is it all a simulation? Is the world radically different than how we perceive it?
Whatever it is that we are, we are perceiving an external world, a world of suffering. When we seek truth, we are seeking to know what actually exists; to know why we exist, why this world exists, and to know our purpose amidst the perceived suffering and death.
Seeking Truth¶
In our modern worldview we often imagine that objective truth can be found merely through logic and observation -- that we can know what actually exists, that we can know the truth. As such, many young and curious seekers of truth approach the fundamental questions of life and fully expect to find answers amongst the philosophers and so-called "intellectuals" of our modern age. For surely they must have answers -- these are afterall the most fundamental questions one could ever ask.
Unfortunately, what we find amongst the learned philosophers and professional intellectuals is a nihilistic program of dead ideas, a history of the failures to answer any of the fundamental questions -- and we're left with rationalizations and word games, as if to desensitize honest seekers, to soothe them into accepting the inevitable nihilism that follows from not answering the fundamental questions of life.
Find one of these so-called experts and ask them yourself -- Can we know anything? What does it mean to know?
They may tell you about epistemology, about "justified true belief", about the Gettier problem, and you'll find yourself reading the likes of Hume, Kant, Nietzsche, Hegel, Wittgenstein, and many others. Or perhaps the absurdists like Camus. Or if you have the temprament for it, postmodernists like Foucault. And then after a lot of study, all you'll know is that the mere concept of objective truth doesn't actually exist, or at least is not knowable -- except we can't even know that, because to claim such a thing is itself an objective truth claim.
We now know less than we did before we started. We could pretend everything is rational and call ourselves "realists" or "pragmatists". And then like a pendulum we could swing the other way and embrace any of the esoteric spiritual systems that are competing for our attention; transcendental something-or-other. Maybe Buddhists have knowable objective truth. Or maybe one of the various gurus or antigurus. Maybe we revert back to secular liberalism, and find ourselves yearning for the comforts of ancient religious beliefs that we just can't bring ourselves to literally believe.
For what is belief other than how we act in the face of the pain and suffering of life? What is it that we actually believe? And why do none of these modern belief systems offer any foundational answers and always seem to bring us further and further away from those fundamental questions we originally wanted to answer?
The very nature of these questions presupposes that truth is not just facts about the way things are, but also meaning and morality about the way things should be. This is, afterall, the human condition. We ought to know something, anything, about our own existence.
As the old Maori prayer goes,
the light, the light
~ the seeking, the searching ~
in chaos, in chaos
Knowing Truth¶
This should be a simple question, is there objective knowable truth? Does truth exist?
In our modern view, there is no objective knowable truth. There are word games. There is a cascade of unconsciously held beliefs behind every word, even the word "truth". There is suffering. There is power and oppression. There is the deconstruction of everything, even deconstructionism itself. Once again, our modern views move further and further away from the fundamental questions.
If you are at all serious about pursuing and knowing truth, you may want to consider an alternative to the fashionable trends of modern philosophy which aims away from fundamental questions, as if on purpose. You may want to consider that the entire enlightenment project has yielded exactly this assault on the fundamental questions, and that it is specifically anti-Christian in its aim: from the secular humanists with their watered down Christian traditions, to the pragmatists and devout atheists, all the way to the esoteric spiritual revivalism that springs forth inevitably from the spiritually dead atheists and the spiritually weak humanists. All of these seemingly disparate worldviews share a singular and notable feature: to weaken and reject Christianity, which just so happens to be the origin of "knowable objective truth". For those who still hold a belief in knowable objective truth and yet reject Christianity, you are operating on the fumes of a dead Christian worldview, and you'll find only absurdity at the other end of your venture.
But what about ... ?
You may be asking, what about the ancient Greeks and their concept of a divine truth, aletheia? Or what about the ancient Romans, veritas? Or the stoics? Plato and Aristotle certainly had a lot to say on this matter. Or even the pre-Socratic philosophers like Parmenides. This was five-centuriess before Christ!
Christianity must have copied the concept of an objective knowable truth, but they did not invent it, right?
Except that Veritas was a pagan Goddess, daughter of Saturn (sometimes considered a daughter of Jupiter); and Aletheia was a pagan Goddess, daughter of Zeus. In some tellings she was a creation of Prometheus -- not exactly what we mean when talking about truth. And despite modern rationalizations, the few surviving poems from Parmenides make this pagan worldview abundantly clear (truth was but one of many spirits and we are but playthings to the gods). Even Plato appealed to a demiurge fashioning the platonic forms which hardly bear a resemblance to what we mean when talking about objective knowable truth.
The stoics referred to the anima mundi and a divine logos that brought the universe into being. Aristotle recognized that a first principle of logos is necessarily unexplainable (for if a first principle had a causal explanation than that cause would be the first principle). Ultimately, these concepts, especially of logos as first principle originated from Hebrew thought (such as from the Septuagint), which is foundational to Second-Temple Judiaism, where objective knowable truth was born (literally).
To be clear, if you claim to be a rationalist, an empiricist, someone who follows science and does not believe in anything you can't see with your own eyes, then you will find yourself unmoored from any first principles necessary for even a pretense of objective truth, and you've probably numbed yourself to those fundamental questions, and perhaps stopped asking. You can ignore the fundamental questions, but non-belief in an otherwise "unseen" reality doesn't negate the existence of that reality. You don't live in a mechanistic universe, because fundamental questions are not mechanistic and yet still exist and are still fundamental. You don't live in an absurdist universe -- accepting absurdism is to abandon reason and will. And you certainly don't live in a postmodernist universe.
The postmodern "deconstructions" of modern views will yield absurdity, but they are still apt critiques of the prideful rationalism we see in secular culture. There does indeed appear to be a patriarchal hierarchy which is the foundation for any and all objective truth claims. It indeed can't be otherwise. The patriarchy, perhaps, is real! And yet it doesn't seem to be man-made, in fact it's the fabric of reality. It's everywhere the empiricists look. On some level the postmodernists know this, and still reject it (and hence reject truth itself).
They'll say, "my truth", "your truth", because truth to them is relative, a language game of power. Yet we can't say this without making yet another objective truth claim. Hypocrisy would bother them if they believed in objective truth. But really, they are assaulting the very idea of knowable objective truth, reducing it to self worship.
For truth to have any meaning, then truth must transcend all subjective perspectives. Something is true if it is objectively true, and knowledge of this objectivity is what brings people to "the Truth".
Modern views frame truth as an attribute, that something is either true or it is not. But in practice, truth is experienced in very personal ways, and not at all confined to sense perceptions. We once understood this in our culture, that truth is revealed to you personally.
Ancient views understood truth as a spirit, which means Truth was something akin to a person. If there is a spirit of truth, then we should not just ask, "what is truth?" we should also ask "who is truth?" In fact, as we shall see, this is the only way we can even hope to arrive at knowable objective truth.
John 18:38
Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?
Spirit of Truth¶
The spirit of truth, like any spirit, can be thought of as a pattern of reality: a pattern of reality that is as objective as it is real (and not a veil of delusions or perceptions). In other words, that which is objectively real is the spirit we are referring. And rather than a what, truth is better understood as a who.
What is a Spirit?
A spirit is any pattern of reality with conscious agency.
In a secular worldview we might refer to the "emergent" pattern and behavior of a complex system or ideology. But the word "emergence" in that context is what if not a spirit? Think of the spirit of a city, or a forest, or even your own home. It might make demands of us; we might participate in or be mere components of the these spirits. Understood properly, we can see spirits everywhere, in all manner of systems that we interact with and participate in. Anyone can "see" spirits, if not directly through symbolism or iconography, but through patterns of reality over time.
If you haven't thought of a spirit in this way, and instead think of spirits as translucent ghosts that don't interact with our world but hover about -- this is most certainly not a spirit, this is a childish caricature and it demonstrates the unquestioned nihilism that possesses our modern sensibilities. Those trapped in a modern reductionist worldview are blind to the everpresent spirits that are everywhere in front of them, pretending with absurd pride that humans are the originators of all the beauty and meaning they perceive.
Who is the Spirit of Truth?¶
The Spirit of Truth is the source of all things as they are, all patterns, simple and complex, all that was, is, and will be -- including our own bodies and minds -- this is the Spirit of Truth; the source, the creator of time and space, the creator of all. What kind of being, what kind of spirit, could be the source of all?
This is what people mean by God.
Well, turns out there's only a few of possible answers. Either God exists, or does not. And if God does exist, then God (the Spirit of Truth) is either knowable to us, or not.
This somewhat crude classification can handily separate the multitude of religious worldviews and metaphysical paradigms into a useful filter, as ultimately we are only concerned with the existence of a Spirit of Truth that is knowable.
If the Spirit of Truth does not exist, or is not knowable to us, then gone too is any hope of a defensible epistemology. In other words, we cannot know anything and there cannot be knowable truth about ourselves, or the universe, without a Spirit of Truth making knowledge available to us. Otherwise, any pretense of knowledge would be indistinguishable from illusion or deceit -- and any truth beyond the illusion would be inaccessible. There's either a foundation of truth made knowable to us, or it's turtles all the way down (an infinite regress of illusions).
Whoever this divine Spirit of Truth is, whoever God is, this universal pattern of reality, He grants us knowledge of ourselves and the world we live in.
Limits of Logic and Reason
While we can proceed with an apophatic approach, we are pushing at the limits of logic and reason. For logic and reason cannot contain in themselves that which gives rise to logic and reason. Logic and reason are not self-sustaining. They do not grant us knowledge of the Truth. They are but artifacts of our consciousness, the means with which we make sense of the world around us. The divine truth, this Spirit of Truth, must be the source of logic and reason (which are merely the means given for us to make sense of the world as it is revealed to us).
Revealed Truth¶
As we cannot reach objective and knowable truth through reason and logic alone, then truth can only be revealed. And this revelation of truth can only happen through communion, that is, relationship between ourselves and the Spirit of Truth.
What is our relationship to such a spirit?
This we can only know by revelation. By asking and receiving an answer, by paying attention to the world around us. And rather than presuppose we arrive at truth through reductionism, we can focus our attention on the other attributes of truth: meaning, morality, and beauty.
Meaning, Morality and Beauty¶
All truth claims consist of causal functionality, morality, meaning, and even beauty. E.g., imagine (or observe) a leaf turning to face the sun; the functionality is obvious, the leaf is absorbing as much sunlight as possible. But what is the meaning and morality of a leaf turning to face the sun? The meaning is to use the sun's light to convert water into energy for the tree. The morality is that the tree is good when it does this, it flourishes with sun, and dies otherwise. And most fascinating, if you perceive one aspect of a truth claim, such as a moral intuition, you can then grasp the other attributes, including meaning. Apply this to life itself, and examine the moral intuitions of what it means to live in a way that is good, and you'll simultaneously arrive at the meaning of life.
In our modern reductionist worldview, we often blind ourselves to revealed truths, even while our attention is captivated by, say, the beauty of a sunset, we'll fail to see the meaning. If you cannot understand the meaning of the most basic things, such as a leaf on a tree, then how could you possibly understand the meaning of life -- let alone the meaning of suffering and death?
Seeking truth is then not an idle hobby of armchair philosophers. Seeking truth is to orient your entire life into a relationship with the Spirit of Truth, with God, revealing meaning sufficient to endure the suffering of this world, and even to thrive and flourish (overcoming entropy and death).
Importantly, by denying objective morality and beauty -- denying that morality and beauty are objectively knowable -- you will be left with the inversion of beauty and morality, which is fashion and relativism. And you will find yourself in a meaning crisis, as relativism does not provide meaning sufficient for the challenges of life. And fashion is transient and fleeting, which is very much the antithesis of beauty, and to truth itself.
Antithesis of Truth¶
The alternative to objective truth, popular in all modern universities, and especially in philosophy classrooms, is relativism and apathy towards truth, which is to say, that there is no objective knowable truth, which is the same as saying there is no such thing as truth.
Even the strong rationalists, with their weapons of reason and empiricism, will shrink in their seats when confronted with a fundamental question -- what is the meaning of life? -- A young student may go to the experts of philosophy (those proclaimed lovers of wisdom) looking for answers to the fundamental questions of life; and instead they will find nothing but a history of anti-Christian ideas.
Here, young seeker, here is a list of ideas that show how complicated is the history of even the word truth.
"But what is the meaning of life?" a young seeker might demand.
"Who am I to tell?"
"I thought you were the expert!"
Imagine an engineering professor behaving this way. A young students seeks to know how airplanes work, and the professor of Engineering presents them only with a history of bad ideas; and a vague relativism such that the student is suddenly unaware of whether manned flight is even possible. As universities continue their nihilistic degredation of truth, that is exactly what the future will be.
You might object to the above as an imperfect metaphor, because engineering and airplanes are physical things with known attributes and answers -- surely fundamental questions cannot have such ready answers! Yet the entire field of engineering sits atop an assumption of a knowable objective truth (and implicit moral meaning), a metaphysical claim, a non-reductionist answer to the meaning of life -- and we all know this. Engineering cannot exist independently without a foundation of knowable truth (including the math that explains aerodynamic lift). How strange that our modern view would only be confident in the fruits but not the tree from which they grow.
if we know the meaning of a plane while we fly, and a chair while we sit, then why are we confused about the meaning of life while we live?
Beware those who cannot answer the fundamental questions they proclaim to study. Beware even more those who do not live in accord to their proclaimed answers.
Know them by their fruits.
Nihilism¶
Ultimately, moving away from knowable objective truth is to move towards nihilism. Nihilism is simply the rejection of truth, a worship of self and in its purest form a worship of nothing. It is, interestingly, anti-Christian in its entirety.
In other words, the move towards Nihilism and away from knowable objective truth, is identical to the move away from Orthodox Christianity. Orthodox, as opposed to heterodox, and Orthodox Christianity as in Christianity as it was believed and practiced by the apostles.
Christianity and Truth¶
St. Augustine
Truth is God Himself, who is the primal source of life, and the primal essence, as He is the highest wisdom. For He is that unchangeable truth which is rightly termed "the law of all arts, and the art of the Almighty Artificer.
The Christian answer to Truth is, on one hand, an outrageous claim; and on the other hand, a necessary claim for Truth to be knowable. That is, the Spirit of Truth -- God Almighty -- the creator of the universe, was incarnate as man, was crucified for us, and on the third day He rose again. Truth is the incarnate word of God, and any articulation of Truth must be revealed to you personally. Truth (the word of God) is the literal person of Christ Jesus. In other words, from mathematics to philosophy to literature, Truth in those fields is the revealed word of God, the logos made visible, who is Christ Jesus.
And even more outrageous, Christ is the mediator between the transcendent and man, between God the Father and man -- and thus between God's will and man. In other words, the creator of the universe is knowable to you, was born and died for you, and is present in your every perception, mediating between known and unknown. As you look out onto the world, the creator of the universe is there with you. The source of all that is, is with you, making truth knowable to you.
To be clear, there is no justifiable epistemology outside of Christianity and these seemingly outrageous claims (and not surprisingly the concept of epistemology did not even exist prior to Christianity). There have been countless attempts (to preserve the fruit without the tree), but all lead to nihilism, to a rejection of knowable truth. Rejecting the uniquely Christian notion of knowable truth yields only a desperate yearning for nothingness -- to return to nothingness.
And yet even in your fallen state, you will not, and cannot, return to nothingness. Beauty draws you to Him, revealing His design, beckoning you to return to a state of grace. To believe in objective knowable truth is to necessarily also believe that your soul is eternal. To deny God, to deny knowable truth, is to fall from grace -- an eternal hell of one's own making.
As outrageous as this can sound to modern ears, the alternative is absurdity and nihilism (and what better way to understand modernity than the observation that absurdity has become preferable to truth). The very idea of knowable objective truth presupposes these seemingly outrageous claims -- that you are created in the image and likeness of God, that the creator of the universe has and always will have infinite love for you. You were made to know and glorify Him (the spirit of Truth), and as such creation itself is knowable to you.
Your life is not only meaningful, but divinely meaningful, an eternal soul made in the image and likeness of God. You are an icon, a finite symbol of the infinite God, an ambassador to the creator of the universe.
Your purpose -- the answer to that most fundamental question -- is to glorify God, to fill all things with life and beauty.