TRANSCRIPT
It has been suggested and encouraged of me that I should begin writing more on my thoughts. I have spoken on the subject of Objectivity so I will attempt to explain my opinions on the matter.
Objectivity is an interesting concept but I have come to doubt if its possible for us to be objective. I believe that there is such a thing as objective truth, even it is for practical reasons and I say this because there was a time where I doubted the very existence of Truth. This was a dark time in my life and during that time I became very familiar with nihilism. Alas, here I am on the other side writing about how my ideas evolved. As I have said, I believe in objective truth for practical reasons; although can we know objective truth? That is my question. I’m not a scholar, I’m not an academic. I’m a layman that thinks he has something worth saying and so here I am.
I suppose I’ll start at the beginning. How do we come to know things? I say we learn through symbols. Language, picture, example; these are all types of symbols; a method of communication that simplifies a message for transportation from one mind to another. The idea, for example, that is in my mind is very easy for me to picture. I can explain my thoughts to myself with very little effort and very little time but to explain my thoughts to another requires me to write hundreds of words in a specific order and I can assure you, its taking much more effort and much more time. This is why I say that we communicate in symbols; even the very words I’m writing are symbols, painting images (hopefully) in your mind; and this is why I say that we cannot know objective truth.
For do images tell us objective truth? Does seeing a painting allow you to understand the emotion that the painter felt while painting as he felt them, or is it merely symbols of his emotion? If you’re honest, I think, you know the answer. You can feel something close perhaps, but certainly not the same. And this is what I’m trying to articulate. We can get close to objective truth but how close? It’s impossible for me to say. But there is such a thing as purposeful deception, therefore anything in the opposite direction to purposeful deception brings us closer to objective truth but when we reach this place we call objective truth, and we see or hear it with our senses; can we perceive it honestly, or are we still seeing symbols and silhouettes as our senses attempt to translate this truth into our minds? Furthermore, if we tried to communicate this truth to another, could we do it? Would they understand what we were trying to paint in their mind? Could we paint the truth in their mind as it was painted in ours? To understand a truth as you yourself understand it, would require someone to be you. You have given words their meanings, symbols mean something to you that is unique to you by the very act of being conscious, having memory, and living. How long would it take, how many words would you have to write or speak to get your message across? And even if you felt that you phrased or painted your message in the best way you could, even if you thought you did a perfect job, would that be sufficient? How many languages would you have to learn to be able to translate your message to every person in the world? Can everyone know objective truth? Is that a good thing?
My position is one I call Subjective Absolutism. I believe there are evils in this world and goods but I recognise that I can’t convince everyone on Earth of my opinions. Does that mean that I ignore my life experiences because I can’t prove it scientifically or if I can’t find someone who agrees with me? Emphatically no. To deny these truths would be akin to denying my very existence. So what is the best course of action? I hold many controversial beliefs, and some of my beliefs I would die for. Is it worth my time to convince someone to believe what I believe, and die for them also? Probably not. So what I do instead is move against the direction of purposeful deception. I don’t aim to convince people of truth, I just speak my truth (forgive the leftist language) and people agree or disagree.
I’m not interested in converting people to my views, neither am I interested in being converted. I weigh the truthfulness of a statement with my own knowledge and judge the statement accordingly, as does everyone else. I have done an insufficient job at trying to explain why its theoretically impossible and highly improbable for the human mind to comprehend objective truth although I have tried, and my aim wasn’t to convince you. I guess what I’m trying to do is say that objective truth is more-or-less irrelevant to our lives. I suppose I’m trying to make a case for Relativism that doesn’t throw away Objectivity because to say there is no such thing as objective truth is (not only saying that the Universe is nothing but lies) an oxymoron for that is a truth statement which goes against the tenets of Relativism. Not only is the mainstream caricature of Relativism self-contradictory, its also evil. This is why I feel the need to offer up an alternative and the best one I can come up with is Subjective Absolutism. Things are true for me without the need to prove them to you. I can only convince someone who is able to be convinced.
This may seem like more of the same from the Cultural Marxists, Moral Relatives etc. But I think I’ve formulated a coherent framework to understanding truth and in fact I think that being able to discard the belief that anyone has the ability to spread the gospel of Objectivity actually empowers people. You can fight for what you know to be true without having to justify it. You can act on your instincts and manifest the world according to your own Will to Power. You don’t have to live under anyone else’s myths. Form your own and seek the truth.
And with that, I’ll leave you.
WLL2PWR
QUESTIONS FOR WILL
1. On what matter do you wish to know "the objective truth"?
2. What made you doubt "the very existence of truth"?
3. What was the attraction of nihilism when you became "very famliiar" with it?
4. What is "the other side" of nihilism?
5. Why are you obsessed with "the objective truth"?
6. You ask if images tell "an objective truth". Can you give an example of an image whose objective truth you wish to know?
7. You ask: "Does seeing a painting allow you to understand the emotion that the painter felt while painting as he felt them, or is it merely symbols of his emotion?" Which painting by which painter do you have in mind when you ask this question and why do you want to know his emotions? If he is already an important painter, there will be a range of scholarly interpretations of this painting and that should satisfy you.
8. Is your search for truth an affection and if so, what is the purpose of this affectation?
You ask: " ... if we tried to communicate this truth to another, could we do it?" It is always possible communicate the truth of our opinion ie that "X believes Y" even if this belief is arrant nonsense.
9. You ask: "Would they understand what we were trying to paint in their mind?" You must know that it is impossible paint any truth in anyone's mind. Therefore you speak in metaphors and then confuse yourself by taking your metaphor literally. What you may mean to ask is "Is it possible to make oneself understood?" and bear in mind that it is impossible to explain or understand nonsense. The best thing to do when faced with people talking nonsense is to question their mental health and ask what motivates them to talk nonsense eg affectation through wanting to come across as deep, romantic, troubled, passionate etc.
10. You ask: "How long would it take, how many words would you have to write or speak to get your message across?" It depends on how good you are at expressing yourself and your command of the language you are using.
11. You ask: "And even if you felt that you phrased or painted your message in the best way you could, even if you thought you did a perfect job, would that be sufficient?" Sufficient for what? Persuade your listener to agree with you? You and I already know the answer. Many people are not respectful of truth, logic or morality and consider their egos to be more important than submitting to the truth, the exercise of logic and obeying the rules of morality. Are you perhaps one of them?
12. You ask: "How many languages would you have to learn to be able to translate your message to every person in the world?" Why would anyone want to do that unless they had an important message? What makes you think your message, whatever it is, is that important? If your message were sufficiently important, you would already have been able to articulate it in your own language to persuade your own countrymen of its importance. If they also thought it was important enough, they would make it known to the world.
13. You ask: "Can everyone know objective truth?" The objective truth of what?
14. You ask: " Is that a good thing?" Can you think of an example of it being a bad thing for someone to know "objective truth"?
15. You ask: "Does that mean that I ignore my life experiences because I can’t prove it scientifically or if I can’t find someone who agrees with me?" Who is asking you to ignore your life experiences? Which idea of yours do you believe to be so important or useful that you so earnestly desire it to be validated by others?
16. Which beliefs of yours are you prepared to die for?
17. When you speak of moving "against the direction of purposeful deception", are you talking about government propaganda?
18. What is your truth?
19. When you say: "I’m not interested in converting people to my views, neither am I interested in being converted," are you saying that your ideas are not up for debate and you are not prepared to debate other people's ideas? If that is the case, then you are expecting people to agree with you without understanding the basis of your beliefs or theirs. You seem to be asking for unconditional love. What makes you think you deserve this?
20. You say: "I guess what I’m trying to do is say that objective truth is more-or-less irrelevant to our lives." If what you are trying to say is that the objective truth is irrelevant to our lives, then why are you wasting time and energy agonising and obsessing about it?
21. "Things are true for me without the need to prove them to you." On the one hand, the truth (about what?) is so important that you have been agonising and obsessing about it for years, on the other, you say it is only your subjective opinion about some unimportant matter that it is not worthwhile to discuss. Which is it?
22. You say: " You can fight for what you know to be true without having to justify it." What do you know to be true? What is the truth that you cannot justify? Why would you fight for something that you dare not articulate and have so far failed to explain?
23. You say: "You don’t have to live under anyone else’s myths." What myths are you referring to?
24. You say: "Form your own and seek the truth." What myths are you forming? What truth are you seeking?
25. Are you confusing fact with opinion?
26. What is the truth you are avoiding?
27. Are you seeking a definite answer to whether there is an afterlife and whether God exists?
28. Do you lack the maturity to accept uncertainty as well as submit to truth, logic and morality?
29. Has it occurred to you that if you find uncertainty distressing, you could choose to believe in God?
30. If you want to worship the Abrahamic God as a gentile, only Islam remains now that you know Christianity has been idolatrous for 2000 years. You may remember from the Ten Commandments that God has forbidden idolatry and should expect Him to punish it, especially after 2000 years of its practice.
No comments:
Post a Comment