We all relatively are adrift from the truth. Our knowledge is based on our perception of things, thus if perception cannot always be trusted, we cannot justify our beliefs based upon our knowledge,for it is based upon our perception. We are all wrong to some degree, for we are not certain that our knowledge is true. There still lies the possibility that our knowledge is ill founded upon faulty perception. Only one who knows all for certain without a doubt is absolutely founded in the truth, but there is no such person among humanity, for we as humans have a limited perspective due to the limit of our senses, life, and location at one period of time.
That one's knowledge is certain and beyond doubt---if anything else is a belief based upon an assortment of rational reasons, but not proofs, derived from experience. Man is incapable of certain knowledge unless he knows all.
It is not true that truth does not exist thus man needs maketh his own, but rather there is truth, only man in his finite state cannot fully understand or of perceive it, he can only make due with the fragments he receives, though they be not all truth, thus every man sets them as his foundation upon which he shall place the rest of his knowledge, not a whole, but a fragment of all truth. And upon this fragment of truth he founds all his “truths” which in the light of the whole turn out to be false, for in lack of knowing the whole all he has left is to create a false “whole” from his fragment.
We erect towers of babel upon the little truth we have. In this we do not create more truth from the little we have but we form a lie. We create the whole based upon our little fragment, but our whole is nothing but a lie, for every lie begins with a little truth and alot of fabrication.
It may seem that Mankind can collectively become omniscient over due time through history, but even in that since man is incapable of omniscience, for he never knows what time has in store for him, and he cannot know everything about the past, only what has been handed down to him.
Thus in all, man as an individual has no hope to transcend from well founded belief to knowledge on his own, and there is no way for man to achieve this end collectively, for time will always refresh the pools of our uncertainty.
Man is an individual left with only the truth of his own existence and from that only certain truth can he begin the attempt to make sense of the whole. His dilemma is that he can only try to make sense of the whole, but not have any sense of the whole, for the whole will always be ahead of him and he shall continually be in pursuit.
One can only know a particular thing with certainty only if one first knows all, for in the light of the whole, one's original conclusions in partial knowledge may conflict with those from total knowledge. This is similar to the problem of induction, but in essence induction is man merely forming his "world" based upon what little he believes based upon the only thing he knows for certain:himself.
One can try to know a particular thing without knowing the verdict(thus have uncertain knowledge), but this "knowledge" would be formed upon what one believes the verdict will be and not on what one knows the verdict is. The verdict in regards to the existence of a reality cannot be found within the reality itself, for something that is doubtable cannot proven to be undoubtable by circumstances from within the reality that is being doubted.
One cannot doubt that they are experiencing something such as sense-data, for it is in existence in order to be in question, but one cannot, since one cannot doubt the existence of sense-data,
assume that the existence of sense-data proves that the messages of sense-data are true, in that sense-data existing does not mean that the external world sense-data references to exists. One may have a dollar bill, but one cannot say they know for sure that the dollar bill has gold backing simply because the dollar says so.
It seems as if one can use experience to eventually reach from plausible beliefs into knowledge, for all the collective experiences can be used to prove something can be known, this would be scientific method, but there are two ways that one's collective experience can be nullified as support for knowledge. 1. All those experiences may only be fabricated and one really has existed only five seconds, thus has only five seconds experience while claiming years of experience based upon fabricated memories. 2. One does not know what the future holds, so one cannot know that what one know in the present is certain or will hold ground in the currents of time.
It seems that there is no way for man to come across truth, thus know anything, for an truth he does have he distorts when attempting to transform it into his "external world". It seems like all men make their own truth based upon the only universal truth that they know which is that they exist. Man attempts to make knowledge out of his sense-data experiences, thus creating a "world", but that "world" is solely known to him. One may say "I am Bob" to another man, but all that other man can know is that the other "said, 'I am Bob'". Bob may very well be Joe, but the other man's world Joe is Bob because Joe said he was Bob not because he is Bob. The man cannot know for certain who he thinks is Bob is actually Bob, he can only believe what "Bob" tells him(sense-data). So the truth is "Bob" is actually Joe, thus in Joe's "world" he is only Joe pretending to be "Bob", but in the other man's "world" Joe is "Bob". So in this light truth seems to be relative, for Joe knows that he is Joe, but says he is Bob and the other man says that Joe is Bob because he "knows" that he is Bob. The problem is really the other man believes Joe is Bob, but he assumes this belief into knowledge, thus he "knows" Joe to be Bob not Joe. Whereas Joe knows he is Joe, but everyone else "knows" he is Bob because he says he is Bob. Joe does not even know for sure that he is Joe, for He may be Bob since everyone calls him Bob. Joe only "knows" based upon his past experiences of answering to "Joe". It could be that "Joe" is truly Bob, but he as Bob had amnesia and his first new memory is of being called Joe, thus to him, he is Joe. The only problem now is why would formerly Bob who now goes by Joe say he is Bob? Joe may be attempting to disguise himself as Bob, so he says he is Bob and the other man "knows" him as Bob because Joe says he is Bob. Now Joe runs into a man named Jack who knew him first as Bob. Joe says," hi I'm Bob." Jack says,"Yes I know you are Bob." Joe is surprized by Jack saying, "I know you are Bob." because Joe to his knowledge has never seen Jack in his life, yet Jack has seen him many times before when Joe was Bob. Joe at risk of blowing his cover investigated into how Jack knew him as "Bob" before they had ever met before. Jack then says, "We are neighbors, Bob." Joe is baffled by this and tells Jack the truth, "I lied to you, I am Joe, not Bob. I've never seen you before." Jack then confused by his neighbor's attempt at telling the truth says, "I don't know what you are talking about Bob, you are not Joe, you are Bob and we are neighbors. You and I live on Athena street. Your address is 3571." Joe then reaches in his wallet and puts forth his ID and it says Bob Walters, and the address reads 3571 N. Athena street. So Joe is left doubting the evidence in his wallet and Jack's memories in favor of his own. What is true to Joe is that he is Joe pretending to be Bob, what is true to Jack is Bob is Bob who thinks that he is Joe, and what is true to the other man is that Bob is Bob. In all this is a tangled web of four men's contrasting perceptions. Some would give up and say Joe is Joe, but Bob to everyone else, thus truth is relative, but the truth maybe objective, only everyone has a relative perception of it.
This may sound like men can collectively come to learn all truth, but men are incapable due to limit of life, and the lack of the ability to be everywhere at once, thus observing all events at once, thus having a universal experience of all reality in one moment. Also, man can only know for certain that he himself exists, so all his experiences even if he has a universal experience of the whole of reality are nullified by existing only uncertainly. They cannot prove that they are true by simply existing or by being experienced by one man, for how can that man who has experienced all be certain that all his experiences are not fabrications? He can't unless he experiences external proofs of his sense-data's claims.
Man in this state of limited truth therefore is an artist in all his attempts to express what he believes is truth. He does not make claims based upon knowledge, but belief based on reason from experiences he can only believe but cannot prove are real. Thus all who are not omniscient, but who make statements proposed as truth are artists and liars who believe what they say is true although they do not know for certain, thus believe the verdict has been reached on the subject they speak so confedently about. Our little truth that we do know makes pathelogical liars of us all, for in our claims of truth, we do not know that we lie. We have this desire to speak the truth when we know it, but the truth is that we do not know the truth, thus it is in our statements of the "truth" that we make our error. But fret not, for although "truth" seems to have the need to be spoken, yet when spoken from the failable position of man it is a lie, truth can exist amongst the lies of falible man. The truth is infinitely concise and pierces right through what we say, for when we say something is true, it holds its ground so long as the actual truth does not knock it from its place. All we can really know of the truth in our falible, finite, and limited condition are the lies that we and others say in the name of truth, but not truth itself, unless it overcomes the lies that swirl about it. We may never live to see the full unveiling of truth, but truth shall be entirely revealed in due time, for if it is not, then it is not truth, but a lie that still remains to be shed by the truth itself.
Our art is a lie which makes us realize the truth: that our lies are finite like their creators, and will someday exist no more in the light of the truth that never ceases to exist even in the saturation of lies about it. It is like a solid rock and it shall never dissolve, only that which is untrue shall in due time cease to cling to it and errode away into nothingness.
One comes to know the truth through the lie, not because the lie is taken as the truth, but because what one has known as truth is shown in the light of all truth to be a lie.
In all this is quite possibly a lie I fabricated from the little bit of truth that I know, but it is from our fragment of truth that we try to make a whole. Your whole may not agree with mine, but neither of us have whole truth, but a little fragment and a lot of lie.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment