Truth is usually supposed to consist in something like "facts" and "concepts" - especially in the form of true statements; expressed symbolically as language, numbers, formulae...
And these true facts and concepts are supposed to be true for everybody and every-thing, in all times and places and circumstances.
Indeed, it is often assumed that truth is the main thing about reality; truth is regarded as a non-negotiable that will impose upon us - sooner or later, like it or not.
This primacy of truth (reflected in the primacy of epistemology within philosophy) has been, throughout the period of "modernity", the bottom-line metaphysical assumption of our civilization...
An assumption so deep that its metaphysical nature is denied, and people with circularity claim that it is a result of "evidence" - by which they mean the facts and concepts derived from the assumption that ultimate reality consists in facts and concepts!
But the world does not come to us pre-divided into discrete units about which we could make true statements - on the contrary, all divisions are Man-made and subject to argument.
All conceptualizations (such as "what are facts" and "what does this fact mean?") are, likewise, via the consciousness of Men.
We cannot eliminate the human mind (or minds) from definitions of Truth; hence we cannot ever find what is true in the way that would be necessary if Truth was to be our primary value, and if truths were the primary way of conceptualizing the world.
It seems that we cannot make sense of the assumption that reality consists of truths... So, if not, then what does reality consist in? I mean: how can we instead distinguish and divide reality?
As I have often said in the past decade or so; I think the ultimate distinctions of real-reality consist in Beings.
If they really are primary, then Beings cannot be "defined" - but we can list their attributes (especially considering that we ourselves are beings); and these attributes include (to varying degrees) life, purpose, consciousness, self-sustaining, potential for growth.
And instead of organizing concepts; the "organization" of reality actually consists in the relationships of Beings...
(Thus, in a sense: in this metaphysics; Beings replace Facts; and Relationships replace Concepts.)
An implication of the metaphysics of beings and relationships is that truth is secondary.
That does not mean that truth is "whatever we want it to be"; but that truth derives from the nature of Beings and of their relationships.
Change the Beings - their purposes, motivations, way of perceiving etc - and truth will be differently conceived...
Change the relationships-between Beings - eg. from love to resentment; from positive to negative motivation, from the impulse to create to the motivation of destruction...
And you will recognize and believe truth differently.
We can see this by the contrast between "truth" as its was conceptualized when our civilization was religious; and how truth is conceptualized in atheistic-materialist mainstream-official discourse as-of 2026.
We can see why there is nowadays almost no relationship between these; no possible coherent compromise between them, no meaningful dialogue even. They are built on different foundations.
And we can also trace how all this has changed incrementally (then suddenly) across the generations over the past few hundred years - and even over the past several decades.
What counts as truth has changed; because truth is a value secondary to Beings and their relationships; and because Beings and their relationships have changed.
Very good.
ReplyDeleteI liked the reminder that 'secondary' doesn't mean 'fake' and it doesn't mean 'unimportant,' but it does mean 'coming second' or 'coming after something else.'
The gospels aren't a canon. They are an *invitation.*
Does 'being' mean the same as the old-fashioned word 'spirit'?
ReplyDelete'What's that?'
'It's water!'
Whether this last statement is true depends on the beings' purpose. Does a fire need putting out? Do crops need watering? Does someone need a drink? Medical saline?
By the way Ed Hurst of Radix Fidem says that there is no such thing as objective propositional truth.
I tend to think that subjective and objective are different and valid perspectives on the same underlying reality (and not antonyms as commonly supposed). Which one is more useful depends on what you're doing. However, denying the subjective perspective has been a major problem in the West.
@Ron - This is meant to be a qualitatively different metaphysics than anything "old-fashioned" - except that it is (I believe) our innate and spontaneous metaphysics - the one we were all born knowing (or assuming) and we we might recall from early childhood. An explicit version of what (seems to be ) assumed by some nomadic hunter gatherers.
ReplyDelete@G - "The gospels aren't a canon. They are an *invitation.*"
ReplyDeleteWell put.
We can't understand the Gospels, or anything else (substitute, "The Bible", or "The Book of Mormon") without primary or prior metaphysical assumptions.
And when these assumptions are wrong, then our understanding of the Gospels will be wrong - which, I would say, we usually find to be the case.
This is why the evil strand of modernity has ploughed so much into inculcating false assumptions at a mass level, then protecting these false assumptions by denying that it has any metaphysical assumptions at all (and, indeed, rubbishing metaphysics altogether - which has been going on for many generations, but fist became explicit about a century ago with Logical Positivism - although LP, in a sense, was merely expressing what had already become assumed and practised in Natural Selection, the natural sciences, analytic philosophy (esp. post Kant), and most of mathematics and its derivatives).