The Elusive Truth (part 2): inherent deficiencies in seeking to establish universal truths By: ProD'or
i have avoided addressing the question of whether a transcendental truth exists, independent of human capability of perceiving it. for the record, i believe in a unitary, universal truth that encompasses and serves as an omni-function for all tangible and intangible phenomena. however, i don't believe humans have substantial access to the relevant underpinnings of that truth. in fact, i believe that humans are predisposed to mere speculation about this truth because observable data yield more ambiguity than they do reliable conclusions.
our physical universe is vast and complex. we are limited to drawing inferences from our observations of accessible portions of the earth. less successfully, we also attempt to draw inferences from an infinitesimally small portion of our solar system. in light of this veritable data shortage, human ambition to understand our place in this universe is, in a word, absurd. the fact that we debate about the origins of the universe - ascribing its creation to a being with supposed characteristics like our own ("I’m a jealous god.") - is pure human hubris. our ambition to know absolute truth in our limited sphere is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to elevate ourselves beyond our inferior position within a universe that predates our species by billions of years. also, these assertions of universal truth offend the next person’s hopes of ascending human bounds of understanding - dashing one's selfish hopes of realizing a corresponding endowment of power over his - otherwise equal - brethren. such assertions are further counterproductive because they tend to pit cultures against each other by holding that certain disfavored cultural realities represent a false consciousness. those in power tend to use such assertions to suppress cultures, creating strife and human suffering as byproducts.
i propose that people should be encouraged to engage in the pursuit of benign human truths. that is, truths that appeal to the broadest segments of the world population and truths that create value by moderating human affilation towards greater cooperation. in other words, the truth most relevant to humans should be the one that best informs us of how to affiliate peacefully and efficiently within the boundaries of our demesne. i submit that anything outside of this analysis is presumptively calculated to obtain power over others and should perhaps be universally forbidden. to be sure, i’m not calling for the end of free speech, but merely for a public policy that discourages any analysis that doesn’t begin with the question: what knowledge is good for all, irrespective of the local consequences for me? in short, i’m calling for Pareto Efficiency in the laboratories and market places of human ideas. -prod'or
our physical universe is vast and complex. we are limited to drawing inferences from our observations of accessible portions of the earth. less successfully, we also attempt to draw inferences from an infinitesimally small portion of our solar system. in light of this veritable data shortage, human ambition to understand our place in this universe is, in a word, absurd. the fact that we debate about the origins of the universe - ascribing its creation to a being with supposed characteristics like our own ("I’m a jealous god.") - is pure human hubris. our ambition to know absolute truth in our limited sphere is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to elevate ourselves beyond our inferior position within a universe that predates our species by billions of years. also, these assertions of universal truth offend the next person’s hopes of ascending human bounds of understanding - dashing one's selfish hopes of realizing a corresponding endowment of power over his - otherwise equal - brethren. such assertions are further counterproductive because they tend to pit cultures against each other by holding that certain disfavored cultural realities represent a false consciousness. those in power tend to use such assertions to suppress cultures, creating strife and human suffering as byproducts.
i propose that people should be encouraged to engage in the pursuit of benign human truths. that is, truths that appeal to the broadest segments of the world population and truths that create value by moderating human affilation towards greater cooperation. in other words, the truth most relevant to humans should be the one that best informs us of how to affiliate peacefully and efficiently within the boundaries of our demesne. i submit that anything outside of this analysis is presumptively calculated to obtain power over others and should perhaps be universally forbidden. to be sure, i’m not calling for the end of free speech, but merely for a public policy that discourages any analysis that doesn’t begin with the question: what knowledge is good for all, irrespective of the local consequences for me? in short, i’m calling for Pareto Efficiency in the laboratories and market places of human ideas. -prod'or
posted by ProD'or at 4:39 PM
3 Comments:
In as much as your basic conclusion leads to a set of standards that we follow for the betterment of society and a 'mild' form of censorship in order to curtail people's public utterances to those only beneficial to humankind... I guess you hold to the belief that we ought to come to these agreed perspectives through education disseminated from your keyboard. I assume your post/manifesto is not bound by the normal confines of being a belief, therefore not equally bound by truth. Your individual 'un-truth' that you share in your post (as a possible solution for better existence between us). No offense, but your gymnastics and avoidance tactics all to circumvent the idea that basic truths exist, seem paramount to someone who desires credit for re-packaging the ideal that we need rules to get along with each other on this planet (sorry for the Rodney King tone). Somethings just happen to be basically true regardless of whether you choose to believe or not. 'We have to differentiate between the truth of a particular belief and the belief (or the act of believing) itself.' I actually agree with your proffer of how we should interact with each other. It's ironic, as I'm sure you know, that what you believe is what was the driving force behind the construction of the Constitution or any historically agreed upon set of good-will actions towards each other. Don't get me wrong, many a men throughout history have abused their authority and power and lorded it over the masses. Actually history shows those people to be the minority class of the wealthy who use error, lies and propaganda to keep the masses in their employ. Yet let's not allow someones abuse of something determine it's usefulness to us (ie. a hammer used to beat you over the head as a child, can as an adult stop you from building your house).
A prime example of truth is seen in the topic of history itself... insofar that once something is in the past it is set (again the only variances being our perspectives). The trend I see is that we as a global society are straying farther and farther away from standards of truth, because it satisfies a basic urge that we have for control. As long as we believe we can create our own realities, then our representations don't have to be answerable to anything or anyone but us. Is there ever a wrong perspective? Can ones perspective ever be correct? Why should your perspective be listened to over mine or anyone else? Why would you ever disagree with another interpretation? What does it matter if everything is interpretation and there is no truth?
i've already stated that a unitary, universal truth exists. that was my first point in the post. nonetheless, i stop short of claiming to know the details of the omni-functional truth. similarly, there are an infinite number of factors leading to any phenomenon (phenomenon = a truth subordinate of and dependent on universal truth as a function). no human, including myself, has the capacity to evaluate each of those factors - owing that most of them are unobservable from the human perspective. further, even the observable factors are too numerous to be analyzed with great certainty. moreover, even if enumeration and indexing of those factors was available, the relative weight of each individual factor would be impossible to quantify with absolute certainty. these are human limitations i'm pointing out, which you seem to be mistaking for human lethargy.
secondly, i agree that the U.S. constitution is an example of truth derived from the basic premise that i've endorsed - that is, the only important truth is that which enhances the benefits of human affiliation. i'm uncertain why commentators, such as yourself, prioritize the pursuit of higher truths over the pursuit of functional truths(da1: "As long as we believe we can create our own realities, then our representations don't have to be answerable..."). i think the first question is: why is truth important, when the so-called "untruths" are functionally adequate in light of human plight? next question: why direct any effort toward extrapolating truth from an incomplete and thus inadequate data set? third question: if we somehow do discover a transcendental truth, what application would it have in our fixed spectrum of time and space? might it perhaps help us transcend this spectrum?
lastly, i submit that the reason why most people are turning away from transcendental truth is that they realize that it cannot be learned in one life span, or even in a million life spans. they also don't see what would be its functional application. it would be up to those who prioritize its pursuit to explain its prospective benefits as compared to the costs and benefits of the aggregated "functional truths" already in place.
You know, I read your statement, 'that a unitary, universal truth exists.' however I was overwhelmed by the preponderance of fodder that preceded that states just the opposite. You proceed to try to prove that truth can only be known in some obscure time frame or circumstance, that make anyone who claims to have access look like guru at the least or megalomania-cal egotist who secretly desires to rule the world with their brand of truth. Your passive-aggressive writing style is no more unobvious than a hippopotamus wearing a dress trying to navigate its way through china store. In fact your Paretian Continental Neoclassical School of Thought is no better for our society than the Anglo-American Marginalist form of Neoclassicism. I just happen to think that your subscribed to socio-economic system would place the impoverished in better position to have the same opportunity to advance, kind of like hitting the reset button on society. Quite frankly, any new system or school of thought would accomplish that at this time. I digress in our discussion as it seems that we both have as a goal a better perspective for the future of this country. Mines is through agreement on basic truths and yours appears to be on denying truth's immediate obtainability while offering another system of belief disguised as equality (an unalienable truth, I might add), Pareto-optimal. The delicate balance needed for Pareto Efficiency would heavily depend on truths being established within that society that I believe we would re-create the very paradigm that we currently exist in. So in closing, despite what it has seemed like, I agree with your overall goal and hope we can convince others simply that change is needed. The same 'ole, same 'ole 'ain't' 'gonna' cut it. A proverbial, 'We're not going to fall for the banana in the tailpipe!' So lay out your full manifesto so we can peruse its contents.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home