Notes: This may be a little more dense than my usual posting, but it lays a necessary foundation both for this blog “Truth in Seeking” and for my development of sexual ethics with “Sacred not Sinful.” I have a more poetic variation to share at some point (the intro chapter to the book this post comes from), so subscribe if you’re intrigued and leave me a comment to let me know what you think!
Truth and Love: Christian Education for a Just Society - Part III, Section II.
Those who wish to argue that there are no absolutes must hold to at least one absolute principle: that there are no absolutes. However, the very nature of that contradiction proves its falsehood. The statement must be an absolute value that nullifies its own premise. Even if a person is willing to argue that such a statement is the only exemption from the absolute value it presents, there is still another issue to resolve. If one exception is permitted, then it is quite likely that there are other exceptions, which may not yet be known. These exceptions might be absolute values, but there is no way to call them illegitimate without jeopardizing the entire argument that they cannot exist. If no exceptions are permitted, then the statement that there are no absolutes is once again proven to be false. By the principles of logic, it is impossible to make a valid argument that there are no absolutes.
Some Christians like to use this argument to counteract claims that a person can choose to believe whatever he wants. “God has given us absolute truth,” they say, unaware of the pompous implications of such a statement. For if God has revealed truth in its absolute form, it is quite likely that no individual is intelligent enough to comprehend it fully. Even examined from the angle of absolute truth as God, or of truth existing independently of a god, the argument for its existence is still quite complicated.
Those who wish to argue that there are absolutes must hold to at least one in-absolute principle: that there are absolutes. Unlike the first claim, the in-absolute nature of the existence of absolutes is not contradictory. For only one absolute needs to exist to validate the statement. However, the claim itself cannot be said to be one of the absolute principles. That would make the claim irrelevant because a person who did not create absolutes and cannot completely define them proclaims them to be. If the absolute claim of an individual had any relevance, it would rob the absolute values of their nature. Thus, no individual is qualified to make an absolute argument that absolutes exist.
It is possible to make an in-absolute argument for absolutes based upon deductive observation. However, since this observation is always incomplete, the one who makes it cannot necessarily elaborate on what the absolute principles might be. Thus, those who argue for the existence of one or more absolutes must inevitably believe themselves to be wrong on two counts. First, their claim itself cannot legitimately be one of the absolutes. They must admit the possibility that their observation is incomplete and therefore absolutes may not actually exist. Second, the one who claims that absolutes exist cannot claim more than the barest inkling of knowledge about what they are.
Only two individuals can claim exemption from this standard. The first has the audacity to believe that every person determines their own absolutes, but this foolishness is not worth further criticism. The second (and much more rare individual) has the right to identify an absolute because it originates with them.
Again, the argument comes full circle. If absolutes do not exist, it is impossible to claim this to be so without creating an absolute. If absolutes do exist, it is impossible for any person to make this claim in an absolute sense without making absolutes subject to the individual and violating their very nature.
If absolute truth exists, it must do so independently of whatever any individual might happen to perceive of it. If absolute truth does not exist, there is no sense in trying to prove that to be the case.
The Existence of Truth
Arguments for and against absolute truth are commonly used by individuals to establish the legitimacy of their belief one way or the other. This search for legitimacy reveals a secondary case made by both arguments. First, it shows that both sides believe truth exists in some form and may be found. Ironically, some seek to prove true that truth does not exist, which seems to me an incredible paradox. They must believe their search can lead to answers concerning the existence or non-existence of truth or they would not search at all. Anyone who truly believed there were no absolutes to find would have no interest in proving this to be true. The fact that there is an argument demonstrates that the feuding factions share a common starting point: there must be a right answer to the question of truth’s existence or non-existence.
Second, the argument over this question shows that an assumption of absolute truth is much more helpful and legitimate than challenging its existence. For even though the statement that absolutes exist cannot be made absolutely or defined by any one individual, it still does not contradict itself or undermine its own legitimacy.
From the assumption that absolute truth exists come two summary observations: if absolute truth exists, it must do so independently of the individual; and therefore, absolute truth cannot be absolutely known. No matter how profound its effect upon an individual, absolute truth can never be fully known.
Consider Plato’s idea of pure form. In his philosophy, the “form” is the absolute and our observations only consider its various representations. A physical representation of a spiritual form reveals something of its nature, but never the full reality. If such forms exist, their various representations are all corrupted, but by studying them, one may learn something about the nature of the pure form. According to this reasoning, it would be ignorant to argue that any one representation was the form itself. By nature of their quantifiable existence, all representations fall short.
These observations leave the seeker of truth in the uncomfortable position of recognizing that everything he believes or sees is something other than the absolute form it represents. If truth is absolute, its versions are nothing more than alterations, aberrations, errors, and misunderstandings. As Solzhenitsyn might say, “truth is singular, its versions are mistruths.” So even the assumption of absolute truth cannot support the opinions of one individual at the expense of another about what it is. They are all wrong.
Examples of Truth in Perception
I will give two illustrations of the difference between truth and perception (or existence and the human experience of it). The first is from the mathematical principle of zero - to the extent I understand it. Zero is a number that does not exist, for it can be infinitely approached without ever being reached. Though it cannot be understood or seen (zero is the absence of...), its impact upon the function of mathematics is profound. Its effects are indisputable. To claim its existence is not necessary. To claim its nonexistence is impossible. Before the Indian mathematicians discovered or quantified it, no one seemed to be aware that it existed, but does that mean the scholars created zero? Or, is it possible that the little oval shape they used to represent the concept describes something far more complex than anything people have imagined so far? I would suggest that zero may be an absolute, which cannot be fully known, though it can be represented by a symbol that is useful for many things. Some might know it better than others, but none know it absolutely.
A second illustration comes from the world of writing.
Plato feared that the written word would corrupt the mind. He believed those who know what a word means and those who don’t both use it to serve their purposes. An author knows the idea that her words were meant to convey, but the reader can only guess at what truth inspired the words on the page. In this example, the author created an absolute: the idea as she understood it. With skill, the writer can communicate the absolute of her understanding more effectively, and the perceptive reader may come close to understanding the idea intended by the author (a sort of absolute defined by the limitations of the author’s mind). But once again, the words are only representations of an idea that can never be fully known in the way the author knew them - and even the author’s knowledge must fall short of whatever her perception represents.
The same phenomenon occurs with music and painting. The absolute value exists and reveals different aspects of itself to different people. There is no denying that the absolute value or meaning is there, but determining what it is can be very difficult, if not impossible. The unique context of the painter and art critic almost guarantee that both will see a different meaning in the same piece of art. Whose interpretation is correct?
Perhaps it is the creator’s, but I would be more inclined to propose that, once again, they are both wrong in their definition of the absolute meaning. Art in itself is only a representation of some absolute that is more profound and yet unknown to either the creator or observer. It is their privilege, if they choose, to take part in this sacred mystery, yet it would be foolish for either of them to claim that they fully understand the art.
Falling short of perfect knowledge does not imply that the search for meaning should be abandoned. The connoisseur of art can sharpen their senses to be more discerning of beauty. The reader can familiarize himself with the nuances of an author - the context, and the language of her works. The mathematician can make use of what cannot be explained: symbols that represent mysteries and impossibilities. The seeker of truth can come closer to an understanding of what it is - or perhaps develop an ability to interact with it.
The Need for Community
Imagine, for example, a large glass sphere built around a single point at the very center. That point represents an absolute. On the edge of the sphere, many different kinds of people peer through the outer surface toward the infinitely small point in the absolute center of the sphere. Each one may think he sees the center from his particular vantage point.
To claim that the center exists is wise. To claim to know what it looks like is nothing more than presumption and perspective. If they could see it, those on the left would perceive a completely different image than those on the right. It would be worthwhile to take the time to explore the center from multiple angles and to honor the perspective of those individuals who have well-developed senses for depth and perspective.
However, even those who cannot see the center still know it’s there and in some ways rely on its existence to make sense of their location on the sphere (which cannot itself exist without a center). Through the use of mathematics, one can discover precisely where the theoretical center is and describe its characteristics. Some mathematical formulas will work themselves out only when they represent the absolute center leading to some level of certainty within the limitations of this language.
Accurate calculations are not the same thing as the absolute center, but they are helpful in understanding and working with it. Equations that fail to resolve do not reflect the center (as it is currently understood) and must be discarded or refined accordingly. New branches of mathematics may be needed to successfully abstract the complexity of a quantum world into predictable relationships that can be calculated and put into practice.
In contrast to the mathematical center, the physical center of the circle can never be reached, though it exists equally in both modes of knowing. Zeno’s paradox continually cuts the distance between the observer and the center in half finding the center to remain infinitely far away. To assume this means there is no center is to defy logic. There would be no paradox without a center.
Likewise to propose that the center can be wherever one wants it to be is nothing more than semantics. If I call the side the center, that only makes communication more complicated. The blurring of terms is neither helpful nor constructive. Similarly, to claim that one particular view of the center is most accurate has two adverse effects. First, it prevents the one who makes that claim from seeking a fuller understanding of the center, and second, it discourages others from looking for themselves.
Those who wish to grow in their knowledge of (or ability to interact with) the absolute center of the sphere (aka. absolute Truth) must first be willing to abandon the appearance of knowing. Once they have recognized their ignorance (and perhaps the impossibility of their quest), they will be able to leave behind their current perspective of the center. While fully aware of its value and existence, they also recognize the limitations of their expertise. Neither will they be deceived by those who claim that one viewpoint of the center is more correct than another. Instead, they will invite many others to share in the development of their understanding. By doing so they risk becoming more confused in their judgement, but once they have worked through the confusion, they will find that the juxtaposition of diversity has brought them closer to the Truth - or at least to an expanded ability to relate with it.
Understanding does not make itself known by an awareness of knowledge, but rather by a light, which reveals the ignorance of those who dare expose themselves to its searching depths. For this reason, it is necessary for each person to begin his search for absolute truth in a spirit of humility. They may start with an in-absolute assumption of absolute truth: there may be no such thing as the absolute center, and if there is, it exists somewhere beyond their definition and control.
Those who confidently proclaim the validity of their beliefs may appear to have acquired some kind of knowledge or control that remains a mystery to the rest of humanity. However, it is their counterparts, who are keenly aware of their own ignorance, that most likely have the clearest perspective on the truth.
The wise store their knowledge in deep places from which few can draw. “The glory of God is to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out.” Truth cannot be taught, only sought. While its nature may never be fully known, the one who is humble enough to continually seek its elusive center - the absolute - will find the journey to be a reward in itself.