Skip navigation

I am always saying that there is no truth. Those who disagree mostly think “truth” is something (or anything) external to the Subject. This was, to me, at first, so obvious a mistake that i could hardly talk about. Now, having given it a lot of thought, i’ll write something.

If there is something that is not the I, the Me, the Ego, the Subject, if there is an external space, than this world must be independent from the Subject. It is still there when you stop believing in it (as Phil Dick would put). Therefore, it is important that said subject — which is to say, us — pay heed to this external world and try to learn something from it.

I do not disagree with any of that. But i still believe “there is no truth”.

The external world is not truth.

To fully grasp what i mean by that, consider that you do not wish to know how many hairs there are in my head or the exact angle formed by my femur and the second phalanx of my left thumb, nor even exactly what is the concentration of oxygen in the blood flowing through my brain. And still, all of those are part of this thing called reality.

When you measure a thing or create a theory to describe the world, you do not capture some essence of reality. Measurements and theories are just methods to relate with reality.

I’m guessing the assumption that makes people believe the contrary is somewhat as follows: if there is an external [world] then it must be in some given state. Even if you cannot know anything about this state, it exists. And, being there and being independent, it is Truth.

On their own words: if there is an external world, whatever it’s state is, truth is whatever is equal to this state.

But this requires the world to assume states. What if the world prefers to be stateless?

What if the external world is not discrete, describable or univocal? What if reality is not uniform? What if it is not reliable?

The a priori assumption that truth exists exacts uniformity and reliability from reality itself. And how can we exact anything from reality?

This might be asking too much: when quantum physics started trying to measure sub-particles it began to seem that they were really not too comfortable being in just one place at the same time, or being in a specific state. Quarks seemed to prefer being a messy unruly alien substance.

{Now please do not take this to mean that i think quantum physics proves my point. I hate it too when those hippie freaks come trying to convey such rubbish as that matter obeys conscience by citing quantum without ever boring to understand any of physics first!!!}

Believing in truth is not humbly accepting what the world has to say, but arrogantly demanding the world to have something to say — a message specially for you!

Believing in truth is expecting the external reality to have some essence — and while we’re making demands, also make this essence something human minds can grasp.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: