I have long felt the middle is the way, that the smart, the
beautiful, the actual, the spiritual, the moral, the loving and the
true are something like perfect Platonic Ideals, while literally,
typically falling short of being Immortal Forms, while remaining
elusive, unattainable and not existent as perfected Forms. So to
promise that our truth claims are just such accomplished, final
answers to everything, that they are perfect, flawless, unchanging
and immortal concepts is to lie or be mistaken, and the zealous
pursuit of certain truth becomes a moral and political nightmare if
practiced. God does not at all exhort us feverishly to chase after
absolute truth or moral perfection. To do so is both unwise,
irrational and wicked.
For it is literally impossible to make some proposition perfect and
incomparable, something which is definable at best as a version of
perfect truth, with the real deal remaining an ineffable and
unattainable truthful statement. What is proffered by humans can
only be what their intellects can produce, not more than what their
limited consciousness is capable of constructing and producing. Our
definitions can never be utterly precise, totally comprehensive and
expressive, exact and complete. Rather a very well crafted, clear
human proposition at best is approximately so or true—and that is
an impressive accomplishment to come so far—as far as one can go
rationally and verbally, and that laudable success should be our
modest, sensible, achievable ideal and objective to settle for
attainable moderate truth, to make as perfect, clear and concise as
possible what is at bottom ineffable, not totally definable, for all
true statements are mottled, approximations.
In this blog entry, my point is that what is true is also influenced,
shaped and revealed through the metaphysical reality and input called
moderation.
It seems to me that what is true is much or mostly governed by the
correspondence theory of truth, how things are in the natural world.
But, truth pluralism and the coherence theory of truth must be
included in our pantheon of illuminative truth theories. This is
required so that we may arrive at or come near to the truth through
also by traveling along other truth corridors, recording what we
observe there and learn, by seeing the world through the lenses of
other, competing theories of truth, including those more imbued with
skepticism, relativism, antirealism and subjectivism that are
rejected by realists loyal to the correspondence theory of truth,
still the most fruitful and promising of the theories of truth.
Truth should no longer be pursued and sought after as done by those
that insist upon all statements meet a standard of being absolutely
and necessarily true in all places and at all times, with no viable,
contending, substantive or contradictory examples or scientific
counterexamples to cast doubt upon these statements.
If we insist upon absolute truth as our measure, then we will have to
reject moderate, approximate truth (So we will not be productive at
working towards ultimate truth, a goal likely infinitely vast,
complex, with its goal post ever retreating. Moderate truth is enough
for humans to search for. Its treasure is well worth seeking,
accumulating and growing in our efforts to grow our understanding.)
or truths which are inductively derived through experimentation,
which are probably true, but the knower does not know 100% for sure
if he is correct forever in all places at all times.
It seems that lying or being deluded or in great error are all
intimately connected to what is on the other side of this
epistemological coin, an unrealistic devotion to an absolute standard
of truth being met with each presented statement, or that statement
unless so asserting infallible, inerrant, complete certainty is to be
disregarded by an audience of critics out of hand, even before the
merits are logically, linguistically, semantically and empirically
tested. To demand from the presenter statements of infallible
certainty guarantees we cannot grow our knowledge, for the standard
not only does not exist or likely does not exist in reality, but we
cannot provide statements of such magnificent excellent, description
or accuracy. For that is not how the world works, and such truth
statements cannot be discovered or made by humans of limited
intelligence.
Somehow seeking absolute truth often becomes a corrupt enterprise. In
part it is linked to fanaticism, groupism, true believers and mass
movements, with their bogus but absolutist assertions. They claim to
possess absolute truth which they don’t but they act as if they do
possess it. They believe what they say also.
To seek perfection and absolute truth is to lie to be irrational and
evil. To lie is to be evil.
To a great extent, it is a legitimate enterprise to seek absolute
truth and get as close as possible, knowing humbly that even
omniscient or near omniscient God does not know, may not know, nor
even desires to seek absolute truth because it does not exist, or if
it does, it is not moral or liberating, and to seek too ardently
after it is to corrode the self, and to turn evil, bitter, resentful
and hateful.
If God cannot ascertain absolute truth or could but refuses to
pursue it, then why should of humans of much more modest intelligence
seek epistemological, absolute, pure certainty or truth. Seeking
after or making claims for absolute truth is an illegitimate
enterprise for humans to undertake, for they so invested must
necessarily fail and turn corrupt and fell.