“We are living in an
age when every social group is struggling frantically to destroy itself—and
doing it faster than any of its rivals or enemies could hope for—when every man
is his own most dangerous enemy, and the whole of mankind is rolling, at supersonic
speed, back to the Dark Ages, with a nuclear bomb in one hand and a rabbit’s
foot [or Bible] in the other.”[i]
“Observe the
intellectual disintegration of
today’s political discussions, the shrinking of issues and debates to the level
of single, isolated, superficial concretes, with no context, with no reference
to any fundamental principles, no mention of basic issues, no proofs, no
arguments, nothing but arbitrary assertions of ‘for’ or ‘against.’…When
intellectual disintegration reaches such absurd extremes…it is time to stop and
realize that there are no intellectual sides any longer, no philosophical camps
and no political theories, nothing but an undifferentiated mob of trembling
statists who haggle only over how fast or how slowly we are to collapse into a
totalitarian dictatorship, [and]
whose gang will do the dictating, and who will be sacrifices to whom.[ii]
Synopsis of the
Second Edition
Because of its length, I will offer my main arguments in
brief, and of course encourage you to read them in more detail:
In Part II, I explore two traditional approaches to truth:
through the Objective, and through the Subjective. For the Objective, I discuss Objectivism’s
approach based on Ayn Rand’s philosophy which believes in three main axioms: 1)
Existence exists; 2) The Law of Identity, A is A; 3) Consciousness is the
vehicle in which to experience reality.
Fundamental to her philosophy is the primacy of reality over
consciousness.
The other philosophy I explore in regards to truth is Soren
Kierkegaard, the Danish theologian and philosopher, widely seen as the Father
of Existentialism. For Kierkegaard, all
truth is subjective; only that which we perceive is real. He argues if one cannot perceive something,
it does not exist, and even if it did exist, it does not matter: perception
determines truth, and all knowledge is human knowledge.
In Part III I discuss the commonality of both: their severe
obsession with the self, and with the individual having the responsibility to
take on the endeavor of seeking truth alone.
Both philosophies place a severe responsibility on the individual. Ultimately, I side with Objectivism’s view of
acquiring data and truth, while not wholly neglecting the subjective. I believe in a careful syncretism of both.
Limitation:
I do not cover other philosophies that attempt to diminish personal
responsibility through socialization or culture; in other words, secular
Calvinism. I do not like such
philosophies, but I am hopeful someone will want to challenge me on their
merit. I would consider such a
discussion more one of economics than of philosophy.
In Part IV, I discuss the consequences of not seeking truth
in an objective manner using the example of the “anit-vaxxer” phenomenon. I mention themes in the Hebrew Bible that
encourage self-reflection and avoiding hubris. I then discuss a theistic
justification for seeking more scientifically-sound data and sources;
ultimately correlating the discovery of the natural world as a spiritual
endeavor. I end this portion from my own
tradition, the Anglicans, and how leaders in our tradition have approached and
sought to adapt (rightly or wrongly) new knowledge into our theology and
ancient tradition.
Part V is a Conclusion, and final thoughts on the importance
of being self-reflective, critical-thinkers, as well as some tips to encourage
one to think critically. Independent
thinkers are the ones who save us all from destruction, and are rarely, if ever
thanked for it.
Of prime importance to this blog is the idea that: No human being is omniscient; no human
being or human institution has a monopoly on truth, therefore we are morally
required to be teachable, and must seek out our own error, while seeking out
truth wherever we may find her.
Part II: Thinking in
the Problem
I ended the last blog with the statement: Truth is something
that is outside the self; it is discoverable, it is knowable (but only in
part), and its nature is completely independent of any human wish, feeling, or
desire. We do not create Truth!
In this blog I would like to expand upon that idea, and to
discuss a responsible response to Truth.
In essence, I will be discussing on how to have a responsible and
healthy relationship with truth. But
first, let us discuss different approaches to Truth.
I think the best approach is to change the question to,
“What is the nature of truth?” and “What are attributes of truth?” To begin the discussion, I will turn to Objectivist
Thought:
“The concept ‘truth’
identifies a type of relationship between a proposition and the facts of
reality…In essence this is the traditional correspondence of truth: there is a reality independent of man
and there are certain conceptual products, propositions, formulated by human
consciousness. When one of these products corresponds to reality, when it
constitutes a recognition of fact, then it is true. (emphasis mine).”[iii]
Objectivism, or the philosophy of Ayn Rand, presents the
most condensed and crystal-clear presentation of the relationship between human
consciousness and truth. Truth is
something that is separate from consciousness.
In other words, the universe exists whether or not I do. In this philosophy, existence or the universe
has primacy over man’s consciousness.
What does that mean? It means
that we do not come to truth primarily through our feelings or even our
perceptions or beliefs. We come to
knowledge and truth using reason. This
does not mean that feelings are to be discarded, quite the opposite
actually. The choice isn’t: either emotions
or reason. But, it is an understanding
of the proper relationships between reason and emotions:
“If an individual
experiences a clash between feeling and thought, he should not ignore his
feelings. He should identify the ideas
at their base (which may be a time-consuming process); then compare these ideas
to his conscious conclusions, weighing in conflicts objectively; then amend his
viewpoint accordingly, disavowing the ideas he judges to be false. What he should seek is not escape through
repression, but full identification and then rational analysis of his ideas,
culminating in a new, non-contradictory integration. The result will be the reestablishment in his
consciousness of emotional harmony.”[iv]
In this understanding, it is our faculty of reason that must
come before feelings in determining truth.
And when we talk of reason we must be clear we are talking about our
“reality-oriented faculty.” The opposite is irrationality, which “consists in taking one’s own feelings,
however formed, as an absolute, then expecting reality to adjust to them. Reality, however, will not adjust.”[v]
But what about subjectivism?
What about the subjective experience?
Surely, one can rationally tell a parent why their baby is dying of
leukemia; they can explain the proliferation of cancer cells, the eventual
shutting down of organs, and eventual death of the child. On the outside we can observe and feel sad
for the child and the family. And the
parents, can rationally understand why their child is going to die. But, does that knowledge embody the truth of
the situation?
Soren Kierkegaard addresses this issue in complete
contradiction to Ayn Rand’s philosophy in stating, “Subjectivity is truth, subjectivity is reality.”[vi] Kierkegaard, often called the Father of Existentialism
(a label he would not have liked), held that the only reality that really
matters; the only reality of consequence is the reality that is perceived.
To Kierkegaard, the parents of the dying child have a truth and reality
completely different from the doctor, the chaplain, or of a young college kid driving
past the hospital on the way to a party.
In each case, since the perceptions are different, so are their
realities, and therefore their truth. So
when we talk about Truth, we can only talk about our Truth, or our reality;
since perception dictates our reality and Truth. For Kierkegaard, pure Truth exists only in the
infinite, that is God. And while Truth
does “exist,”[vii]
our varying relationships to it can only be experienced as solitary individuals,
alone. All are in error, or not in the
Truth, but that discovery of error cannot be revealed by another human being,
only discovered by the self:
“For my own Error is
something I can discover only by myself, since it is only when I have
discovered it that it is discovered, even if the whole world knew of it
before.”[viii]
Soren Kierkegaard’s philosophy and that of the
existentialists in the end did more harm than good.
But, what it did provide was an understanding
that perception alters one’s view of the world around them; that there is a
context in which we all approach the universe.
Part III: Integration
of the Subjective and Objective
So from Ayn Rand and Soren Kierkegaard what can say about
Truth and our relationship to it?
Objectivism offers a concrete and scientific method to the approach of
Truth. Objectivism claims that reality
and existence exist outside of human consciousness. Regardless of my feelings or wishes or faith, existence exists, and
the facts of reality are what they are: Truth is something that is entirely outside of my control. However, what Objectivism fails in providing
is any coherent teleology; it does not provide a meaning or purpose to the
human condition. To have a discussion
about Truth with no concern for meaning or purpose would be an abomination to
Kierkegaard.
Soren Kierkegaard is a disaster when it comes to the topic
of the rational acquisition of facts, but does provide a philosophical
perspective that honors the experience of the individual. Kierkegaard offers a teleology, however not
specific. Meaning and purpose are the
fundamental attributes to our humanity; however, the ultimate determination of
purpose is an act of will and choice.
Ultimately, Kierkegaard argues, we have to admit there is no rational
basis for our existence, and so we ultimately must take a “leap of faith.” And this brings us to what both philosophies
have in common: the obsession with the sovereignty of the individual.
Both Ayn Rand and Soren Kierkegaard have an obsession with the
individual and its relation to the universe.
Both place the ultimate responsibility of choices and consequences on
the individual. How does one use their
mind? How does one seek to improve themselves? How much does one self-reflect?
How much does one seek to integrate experience and knowledge? All these questions are of paramount
importance to these two opposing philosophers, and I propose this commonality
is where we launch our own inquiry into “what is truth?”
Part IV The
Spirituality of Seeking
By now, it is probably clear that I will not be answering
specifically, “what is truth?” But rather, I find it much more responsible and
healthy to talk of approaches to truth, especially in our world today. We see our current culture being torn apart
by conflicting news stories. Media
companies almost seem in conflict with each other to provide the most popular
news, with decreasing regard for context or presenting opposing sides. A common and dangerous habit of individuals
is to enshrine their own viewpoint as “truth,” and then consume or discard data
based on their own viewpoints. The
consequences are dire and are becoming deadly.
One example is the “Anti-Vaxxer” Movement based on
information that has repeatedly been disproved by both scientists and clinicians
who work in the field (doctors and nurses).
Because of fear of autism, many people are no longer getting their
vaccinations, including measles vaccinations, which of course is leading to an
increase in the amount of occurrences of measles. In 2000, there were virtually no cases of
measles, by 2010 there were 1,521 cases in the New York and New Jersey areas
alone.[ix] Ironically, one of the symptoms of measles in
a pregnant woman is miscarriage. So much
for protecting children. So how do we
find out the truth and what does it have to do with spirituality?
Coming from a Christian Background, there are certain themes
that we can gather from our sacred texts that address this very issue. One theme in the Hebrew Bible I think is
clear is “You are wrong,” or to put it in a nicer way, “you are not as right as
you think you are.” The prophets were
sent the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah to point out their errors, and their
breach of the law, Torah. However, the
Kingdoms of Judah and Israel in their hubris thought they were immune to
judgement because of they were God’s chosen people. They chose to rely on their own
self-conviction rather than assume any responsibility for their thought and
actions. They chose to trust in their own self-righteousness rather than enact
any self-reflection. Two words of course shattered their delusion: Assyria and
Babylon. In the Hebrew Bible, fidelity and faith are of course rewarded, but I
can think of no example where any hero of faith condemned inquiry into
knowledge or wisdom. In the New
Testament, we are given a dialectic regarding wisdom and knowledge, which of
course are common to the New Testament.
We are told to grow in spiritual strength and in wisdom, but we are also
told that God choose the foolish to shame the wise. Sadly, fools took that as sanction to shame
themselves. I hope there is a continual
debate among Christian circles about the ultimate meaning (the Truth) of these
passages. Because Christianity needs to
shake off the Dark Ages, and the Medieval Period for good, and see this
Universe as God’s…as an uncontrollable benevolent force awaiting discovery.
Coming from an Anglican Christian Background, the idea that
Truth is something outside ourselves is something we affirm in our Scripture,
Tradition, and Experience. All persons
who believe in a Sovereign and Holy God should be able to relate. We share with others the belief that God is
wholly other, independent of all our wishes.
God cannot be controlled, cannot be manipulated. God is free, and God is what and who God
is. It should be clear and obvious the
implications. For anyone who believes in
such a God; that such a God is the Creator of the Universe, there should be no
fear of new discovery or knowledge. In
fact, we should long for it. Scientific
Discovery is the revealing and unveiling of the mysteries of Creation, and it
all points to God. There can be
no contradiction between discovery and fidelity to God. For those who are secularists, the
implication should be clear: Whether one believes in God or not is
inconsequential in an honest pursuit of Truth; simply replace God with
Universe. One need not believe in a
personal God to discover the wonders of the universe around us. It is imperative that if given the choice
between data that is scientific-based, or data that is given from mere opinion,
one MUST morally choose that which is scientific-based. When looking at news stories, one must begin
to discern: what material is seeking to inform? And what material is seeking to
provoke a visceral, emotional response?
But what does it mean for our faith? What about concerns of
theology and science? Here I defer to
Bishop Federick Borsch:
“There are…enormous
opportunities for those who believe that their faith in God and the forms of
truth which science can discover should not be in conflict. What may be most important for this
integration is a profound awareness that God is so present and intimate to all
that is that we might even speak of the world as God’s body”[x]
And from Charles Gore on the topic of the continual
development of Theology in our age:
“The real development
of theology is…the process in which the church, standing firm in her old
truths, enters into the apprehension of the new social and intellectual
movements of each age: and because ‘the truth makes her free,’ is able to
assimilate all new material, to welcome and give its place to all new
knowledge, to throw herself into the sanctification of each new social order,
bringing forth out of her treasures things new and old, and showing again and
again her power for witnessing under changed conditions to the catholic
capacity of her faith and life.”[xi]
How we accomplish the above task is, of course, up for
debate. The Episcopal Church and its family, the Anglican Communion continue
that lively debate and discussion, and rightly so. The worst thing we can do is walk away from
each other, to stop learning from each other.
The egregious crime is when any person or any group is so self-convicted
of its own righteousness, that it deludes themselves into thinking they have
nothing to learn, they know it all, in other words: that they are God. Many who claim to be persons of faith in God,
are in fact blasphemers, as they are convinced that they alone are the prime
arbitrators of judgement and what is true or not. Without humility and a spirit of discovery, I
am not sure how one can be faithful to any God.
Part V Conclusions
and Critical Thinking
The purpose of writing this blog was certainly not to win over
the masses, or to be popular. It is my hope that even reading parts of this
blog, one will begin the process of thinking.
And not thinking to confirm one’s own thoughts or convictions, but to
question them. Most people are quite
content where they are intellectually (though to use that word is a
stretch). Most rely on their chosen
political and religious factions for their identity. They rely solely on others for their worldview,
to teach them what is right or wrong, what is true or not, who is “in” and who
are the enemies. We will never convince
such people, let them go. My writing is
to the independent thinker, the one who finds it difficult to feel completely
safe or comfortable in any tribe. It is
on your shoulders that human society has always rested and relied.
To be an independent thinker is to be alone in many
respects. It requires a conviction that
the world around us is knowable (at least in part), that the universe is
ultimately benevolent, that the human mind is capable to acquire and discern
truth. Independent thinkers are
frustrating to any group. Always being
respected, rarely being loved, these brave men and women are the ones who ask,
“why?” while others are willing to set the world on fire with their own
convictions. They are the ones who give
pause to rage, and pause to the finger on the nuclear bombs. Indeed, they save us all, and we need more of
them.
So, I began this entire project as a response to all the
false news that is being spread, and all the cynicism surrounding media
sources. How can we determine truth in
the midst of all this chaos? The more I
thought about it the more I realized the majority of people are not really
asking, “what is the truth?” But, “what news supports my worldview?” I challenge all independent thinkers to ask,
“what is truth?” or “what is the truth in this situation?” And there are a variety of ways to do
that. One is something I learned in
college: if you cannot argue to the
death both sides of an argument, you don’t know enough to have a responsible
opinion on it. Seek information that is scientific or fact-based that
contradicts your worldview. Also, learn
the peaceful perspective of opposing views, while being aware of the violent
irrational views on your side. I have
found that over time, I really don’t have a side anymore, and when I do, I find
myself defending the other side a lot.
Another sacred phrase the independent thinker says is, “I don’t know,” or “I don’t have enough information to have an
informed opinion on this topic.” Such
a vivid expression of humility is both honest, and usually earns one respects,
as it is so different from the arrogant ignorance that is so common place.
I do like this five-minute video on critical thinking:
In closing I would like to say thank you for reading, and
never forget our world depends on critical-thinkers and self-reflective
souls…please join the struggle. Humanity
is worth it.
[i]
Rand, Ayn. “To Young Scientist,” The
Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought. Edited by Leonard Peikoff,
Meridian Publishing, 1989, p.13.
[ii]
Rand, Ayn. “The Intellectual Bankruptcy of Our Age,” The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought. Edited by
Leonard Peikoff, Meridian Publishing, 1989, p. 88-89.
[iii] Piekoff,
Leonard. Objectivism: The Philosophy of
Ayn Rand. Meridian Publishing, New York, 1991, p.165.
[iv]
Ibid., p. 162.
[v]
Ibid., p162-163.
[vi] Kierkegaard,
Soren. “Concluding Unscientific
Postscript To the ‘Philosophical Fragments:; An Existential Contribution by
Johannes Climacus.” A Kierkegaard
Anthology. Translated by David F. Swenson, Lillian Marvin Swenson, and
Walter Lowrie. Edited by Robert Bretall, Princeton University Press, 1946,
p.231.
[vii]
Kierkegaard actually does not use “exist” when talking of God: “God does not think, He creates; God does not
exist, He is eternal.” Ibid., p231.
[viii]
Kierkegaard, Soren. “Philosophical Fragments, or a Fragment of Philosophy by
Johannes Climacus.” A Kierkegaard
Anthology. Translated by David F. Swenson. Edited by Robert Bretall,
Princeton University Press, 1946, p. 158.
[ix]
Recame, Michelle. A,. “The Immunization-Autism
Myth Debunked.” International Journal of Childbirth Education, Vol. 27,
Number 4. October 2012.
[x]
Borsch, Federick Houck. Outrage and Hope: A Bishop’s Reflection in
Times of Change and Challenge. Trinity Press International, Valley Forge,
PA, 1996, p. 82-86.
[xi]
Gore, Charles. “Lux Mundi,” The
Reconstruction of Belief: Belief in God, Belief in Christ, the Holy Spirit and
the Church. Edited by Charles Gore,
Charles Scribner’s Sons Publishing, New York, 1926, p. 188.
