There is only one kind of truth, Intrinsic Truth. As opposed to Rational Truth, Intrinsic Truth is true because it is true. Any chain of logic, reasoning, rhetoric or data used to prove the truth of the matter asserted is Rational Truth, not Intrinsic Truth, and therefore fails to qualify as truth. This is because the truthfulness of the proposition relies on speculative extrinsic factors and is ultimately based on tentative underlying assumptions which may or may not be correct.
Failure of any of the links in the chain of reasoning will undermine, impede or destroy the credibility or "Truthiness" [sic] of Rational Truth. Rational Truth may very well aspire to become Justified True Belief, which some consider knowledge of truth.
However, it is fallacious to give accreditation to Justified True Belief because it is merely a fiat of one's beliefs. Justified True Belief works as follows:
1. A is true (an unproven underlying assumption established by fiat)
2. B believes A is true.
3. B is justified in believing A is true.
We here note that “justified in believing A is true” is incredibly vague. No threshold relating to the to the validity, soundness or coherence of the belief is required. We also again note that 1. has nothing to support its truth other than fiat. The real problem is Justified True Belief is applied:
4. B is justified in believing A is true.
5. B believes A is true.
6. A is true.
Or A=(B+J)-(J+B)=A
The beautiful symmetry of Justified True Belief is a result of its inherently circular logic.
1. A=(B+J)-(J+B)=A
2. A=(B+J)-(J+B)=A
3. (B+J)-(J+B)
It may seem painfully obvious, but in order to know something you have to know it is true. We see that Justified True Belief fails to count as knowledge for the exact reason that it never addresses the truth of the proposition. All we have left are beliefs and justifications; hence:
4. (B+J)-(J+B)=0
The real problem is that if you have justification (at least in your own mind) for believing a proposition and if you believe it you might think you have gained a knowledge of the truthfulness of the proposition. Having justification for a belief you believe is actually true is faith, not knowledge.
Faith is a trust or belief in something not based on truth. Scripture defines faith as "faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true." The paradox of faith is that it allows you to know things without "knowing" them.
While many look down on faith as backward or anti-intellectual, the truth , which no one wants to admit, is that even logic, science and reason are built on a foundation of faith (in relying on science, reason etc.) Faith can never be effectively forced or even fully communicated to another. It is an internal and personal matter.
While we all can advocate for our beliefs we do not have the moral or reasonable authority to badger others because our arguments are "proven" by some objective standard because it isn't. ultimately every position is based on faith in one thing or the other. Some accept this and some don't.
Who is more foolish? The fool who knows he knows nothing or the fool who thinks he does?
Applying logic to logic negates itself. Logically we should recognize the drawbacks and blind spots of logic and not totally rely on it alone:
L-L (Logic applied to Logic) cancels itself out:
L-L=0
If we combine faith with logic and apply logic the results are more promising:
F+L-L=F
In the end faith is all we have.
Thus we see that the sum total of all human wisdom is nothing. This may come as a disturbing shock. It is not likely to find many supporters. But as Moses said, "Now I know man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed." When the Oracle at Delphi proclaimed Socrates as the wisest man in Athens he was troubled since he always insisted he did not know anything. He came to realize that he was the wisest man in Athens because he had reached the crowning pinnacle of all human wisdom-that we truly know nothing.
Posts
