Unless the next guy is John Locke.
(Apologies to Ricky Gervais)
But I am no expert in philosophy nor philosophers; and really, just pulled Locke out of a hat. And there are lots of names in that hat. And I am fairly persuaded yours is in there, too.
You may not think yourself such, may even rebel in some form at the notion. But if, as the word implies (do words hold implications? ideas derived and expressed as derivatives?) perhaps you too can be called a “lover of wisdom”.
Yet even that word ‘philosophy’ and its practitioner as ‘philosopher’ (philo from philos=lover, sophy from sophia=wisdom/knowledge) only brings us to more derivation of ideas…like love/affection and wisdom. Are they…real things?
We are always ‘working backward’ as it were, to seek after a firm foundation, some irreducible kernel of truth that neither needs no, nor would bear any, support in the ‘after’, it being prime or original pillar. But here we have met ourselves.
For whether we declare ourselves as seeker or not, all proceeds from some (to us) irreducible foundation we call a ‘knowing’, even a knowing start or start of knowing, to there ‘step off’ to gather more.
Like it or not…we are always linear in our logic. And not only so, we pride ourselves upon it, most often eschewing what is called circular reasoning as corruption of reason, a betrayal of an orderly construction we tend most universally to exalt. If a man is unable to ‘make his case’ according to that logic (even mathematical in nature), he is deemed illogical…even senseless.
If a man cannot supply to us an adequate ‘because’ for his propositions that can be followed plainly ‘back’ to an irreducibly plain truth (to us), we care to hold no part with him. Admittedly this matter of truth, even if not universally agreed upon to quality and nature of identification, is generally accepted as a universal reality.
We may not agree with a man (or any man, for that matter) as to his foundational truth from which he operates, but we would be loathe to say “that is true but I reject it”, (as in: ‘power, pleasure, or acquisition of gold is all that matters’)
We are far more inclined to think and say, if or when rejected, ‘that is not true’. We conclude the true remains even as a real thing, even when to us it seems unfulfilled to our satisfaction. Obviously the man who might say “there is no such things as universal or ‘real’ truth” is left in the poorest position of all; de facto admitting he can only lie in his saying of ‘that truth’. It is, in that way, as silly as an avowed nihilist saying “I am a nihilist”.
By seeking to deny truth or meaning, he reverse establishes it. For anything to be shown ‘untrue’, there must remain the conviction truth exists in order ‘to reject it by’. How far would you follow me in my contentions were I to say “The truth is: everything is a lie, truth does not exist?” (Where then would any ‘knowing’ appear…even so called yours and mine?)
Do you see a man beating a dead horse?
Good, you see a true thing.
Truth, as it cannot but be otherwise, cannot then of necessity be a thing in need of support, or either argument or contention…it just is…owing to no ‘because’. Either truth is the support, the first pillar, or true is shown untrue and in necessity. Can truth…be ‘untrue’? Is truth necessary to you? Is it ‘your support’, or is ‘your truth’ in need? Necessitating your ‘because’ to find its justification?
Now, of course, the contention previously made that words we use are derivatives at best, representational things (actually ‘concocted’) to ‘show’ a something that necessitates their usage as exemplars…is either ‘true’, or not. You cannot show me your thoughts or ideas (even if I believe I see them) except by some translation into expression…and of course a ‘working model’ exceeds words on a page, if you can create one.
The artist Monet was not limited to seeking to get his ‘inner’ frame published by words. Nor Mozart. Many languages exist. I would even be bold enough to say…of all ‘those’ extant, man’s verbal language may indeed be poorest of all conveyance. The poet seeks to transcend that poverty in his way, also. Coloring, as it were, with a pallete of nuance that in itself encourages some digging and consideration.
Funny how we tend to think words as often firmest and most reliable, and simplest…well, at least to me it’s funny in the way of strange. Especially when they may be the most concealing by camouflages while proclaiming their own plainness. Are all men liars?
Against what truth would this be measured? Could this be measured?
israelx7wordpresscom 