All We Need Is Truth

People are simple. And love to be simple. That’s why, for most of them, aside from their profession, all they know is “sports”, and it’s a new religion. Being complicated is expensive.

One commenter on my site, Benign, apparently obfuscated by my broadside against the delirious sexism of past and present Catholicism, called me deluded to think that “rationality” even exists. Evolution does not “progress.” The Soviets “rationally” outlawed marriage from ~1918 to the 1940s, before realizing that this “rational” decision didn’t work.”

The USSR outlawed marriage???????? Same source which saw them drinking blood of “capitalists”? Logic is easy, truth is hard.

Modernist, Postmodernist, Metamodernist Jargon Is Jargon, and jargon ain’t truth! “Meta”, though, is a serious operation we all practice. See “Mind From Meta“.

Marriage is a fact of human ethology, the natural behavior of humans. To outlaw it would not have been irrational, because reason can always be found, but futile, as going against marriage goes against human nature. This is exactly why the Soviets didn’t outlaw marriage: they were not that dumb.

By the late 1920s, Soviet adults had been made more responsible for the care of their children, and common-law marriage had been given equal legal status with civil marriage. Is that what Benign alludes to? By 1944, the Soviets went back, and recognized only legal civil marriage, to encourage more steady families.

Rationality exists, but as I have emphasized in the past, as a constant rolling of the drums, a logic can be anything. That evolution “progresses” is a battle from 1800 CE, when Lamarck asserted this thesis. It’s correct: clearly some of today’s lifeforms are the most complex ever.  Some day all biologists will proudly view Lamarck as right, and their predecessors of the 1960s, who were fanatically anti-Lamarck, as deluded bigots.

How do I know Lamarck was right? Tons of knowledge that those who scream Lamarck was a maniac (following the slave master Napoleon) never heard of these tons, they are children.

To see evolution’s progress, don’t look at sharks, or oysters, and other animals in evolutionary stasis. Instead, look at Blue Rorquals, most massive animals ever, & look at us, most clever. The most advanced animals are the most complex, and they are complex in ways beyond what we understand of genetics.

Beatles sang: “All You Need Is Love!”. Silly stuff: we all got love, otherwise we won’t exist. We have all the logics, at our disposal, and all the love we got as children.

To order and discipline our logic, and even our loves, most of what we need is truth

“Postmodernism” was the realization that many ideologies were the fruit of tribalism, not truth (as they malevolently claimed). This is not really new. See  vérité en deçà des Pyrénées, erreur au-delà de Pascal (a thought unpublished in his lifetime: truth before the Pyrénées, error beyond them)..

“Deconstruction” consisted in finding out where things came from. It’s not conceptually different from analysis (a unloosening), a concept found in Aristotle, and obvious centuries before him.

All this is to say that those who have pretended to introduce new ways of thinking about thinking have eschewed the truth: there is no truth, but truth, and, in the human species, it’s as old as dinner . There is no truth, but truth! In the human species, truth is as old as dinner. No truth, no dinner for the human, but one for the lion. The truth was in the dinner. In how to get dinner!

Right, truth is dangerous, because some claim to have it, and they don’t. But they always have, and always will. The Wise can’t go around, claiming they don’t have the truth, as Socrates did, or, worse, as Socrates claimed again and again, and the self-declared “post-modernists” parroted, that there is no truth… Because if they do that, they do exactly what German Jews (among others) did with Hitler and his Nazis: leave a wide open field for infamy to proclaim its own version of truth. And everybody, or, at least, most Germans, believed them. And others, like most Americans, pretended that it was OK with them.

The scientific method does NOT opposes the notion of truth, as those who have only a shallow knowledge of pop science are all too often led to believe. It’s exactly the opposite. Euclid’s theorem or the classical laws of optics are still true… They are actually more true than ever. In their domain of application. They are more true than ever, precisely because now we know where their domain of application came from. In other words, we control their meta-logic. We know where their truth come from, and where it’s located. And how to control it.

There is no logic without a metalogic, establishing therein, a notion of truth. Thinking is, and always was, an experimental process.

All we need is truth. But it’s the hardest thing. Truth never was, nor will ever be, a safe place. But it’s the safest place.

Patrice Ayme’

Advertisements

Tags: , ,

24 Responses to “All We Need Is Truth”

  1. EugenR Says:

    Truth, a very dangerous concept. As truth by definition should be the same truth for everybody, everybody ha his own truth. Obviously there are those, who create out of their imagination their own truth, and the others, the masses, who are obedient to the truth, or even worse, obedient to the leaders of the truth idea. Rationality didn’t help to much with truth either. Marxism is the most rational concept about social reality ever created. Yet, does division of society to social groups according to their economic function really exists? What this concept means, at age of internet, AI, and virtual reality dominating more and more the human life? The most successful concept the humanity ever created is “scientific method”, that oposses the concept of truth. Is it rational, does it uses logic, definitely yes, yet it doesn’t include a claim about truth, at most a hypothesis verified by evidence. “God is not a helpful hypothesis”, Laplace.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Marxism? I have very old timer real Marxist (like Marxists who got arrested for serious stuff in Italy) friends. They agree with me, namely Marx is quite a bit obsolete. My conceptology is much simpler: I have the plutocratic effect, and that’s it. All the rest is testable human ethology.

      Right, truth is dangerous, because some claim to have it, and they don’t. But they always have, and always will. The Wise can’t go around, claiming they don’t have the truth, as Socrates did, or, worse, as Socrates did again, and the self-declared “post-modernists” parroted, that there is no truth… Because if they do that, they do exactly what German Jews (among others) did with Hitler and his Nazis: leave a wide open field for infamy to proclaim its own version of truth.

      The scientific method does NOT opposes the notion of truth. It’s exactly the opposite. Euclid’s theorem or the classical laws of optics are still true… They are actually more true than ever. In their domain of application. Precisely because now we know where their domain of application came from. In other words, we control their meta-logic.

      Laplace… Tyrant Napoleon:”Monsieur, je n’ai pas vu Dieu dans votre livre.” Mathematician cum Physicist Laplace:”Sire, je n’ai pas eu besoin de cette HYPOTHÈSE.”
      (Sir, I didn’t need this hypothesis [“God”])

      • EugenR Says:

        If you speak about Jews, who did nothing against Hitler, it depends who. For example the Jews of Wiena circle, the empirical logical-positivists, and especially Karl Popper, done all they could to do, in the field of philosophy to fight all those pseudo scientific misconceptions, that became the basis of Nazi and Communistic ideology. So did the Frankfurt school Jews. Unfortunately very few people have capacity to understand them. Much more people “understand” the empty slogans, like “We will make America great again”, “Deuchland uber aless”, or “Proletariat of all countries unite”. Add to it the highly influential slogan “Coke Adds Life”, or Macdonald’s, “I’m Lovin’ It,” and you have a whole range of reasons to be very pesimistic about the human capacity to try to cope with the global imbalances the capitalistic economy slowly causes the globe to slip into. Imbalances always ends with crisis. I’m not speaking about economic crisis like at 2008, I’m speaking about global crisis of insufficient most basic resources, like air and/or water.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Long story. About German Jews and Hitler. American Jews did nothing. Hannah Arendt attacked the German Jews, especially the “Judenraten”. She was excoriated for saying… the truth. I came across signatures of hundreds of prominent Jews supporting Hitler. Also 180,000 German Jews served in the Wehrmacht, the Marshall heading the invasion of Norway (1940) was a 100% Jew, etc…
          Unfortunately German Jews were first of all militarized German robots, like the rest of most Germans at the time. OK, there were exception…. Not enough!
          American Jews were very very culprit. They didn’t do anything, whereas they should have made it so that the USA support France in a timely manner: 1939. Better: 1936…

    • gmax Says:

      Patrice many times in the past said science is truth. What say you?

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Yeap, science is truth, yet truth comes with a context attached, always… .

      • EugenR Says:

        Science is just an instrument, how can be an instrument truth or false. I have to correct your question. It should sound like, “is science about finding out the truth”. The answer is no. Science is about to try to understand the non-understandable. Science also limits itself only to the natural phenomena, that can be experimantaly observed. As science advances with its understanding of the reality, and developing new sofisticated instruments, like the Hadron Collider, which is in a way extention of our limited human senses, it slowly pushes the limits of what is field of scientific research and what is not. For example the phenomenon as life or consciousness was a tabu for scientific research until recently. Science also doesn’t ask if this or that finding about reality, even if thousand times experimentaly verified, is truth or not. Science is claiming hypothesis that can be verified or refutated. If refutated, then hypothesis is not valid, if verified, it means, it still was not refutated.
        Truth is a very different phenomenon. Truth, either you believe or you don’t. You can’t prove or disprove truth. Patrice spoke about Euclidean geometry as being truth. Yes within its limited frame as a closed system or as Patrice called it, “attached context” it is truth. The same can be said about sentence like, “the water has property of wetness”. It is truth always, after all wetness can’t exist without water, and water can’t be not wet. But exactly as in case of wetness of water, Euclidean geometry, is only a system of words within themselves. The word water includes in itself the wetness. So the sentence “the water has property of wetness” is a useless sentence, that brings no new information. On the other hand Euclidean geometrics, is just a semantic two dimentional representative system, without any connection to the real world, which is at least three dimentional, according to the human everyday perspective. Yet we know, the reality in high speeds, unobservable by human daily experience, top be explaned needs the fourth dimension, the time. The same is when you want to observe the behaviour of the most elementary particles.
        Conclusion, truth cannot be the subject of scientific research, since even certain scientific finding will be truth, we will never know if it is a finding of absolute truth or not. The only thing we can know about science is, that it works. It enabled to the humans to create all the technology, that surrounds us, by being able to explain causalities in the nature, from the simple to complex, or from the complex to the simple. On the other hand faith in any kind of truth, be it an exterrestrial being like God, or pseudoscientific theory, like faith in existance of ex-terrestrial UFOs, brought no tools to humanity.

        • gmax Says:

          OK, beats me. Why won’t Patrice come to my rescue? Seems to me you are identifying truth and revelation

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Hi Eugen: I am writing an essay to answer you. However, I don’t understand the following passage of yours which totally baffles me:
          “Science is claiming hypothesis that can be verified or refuted. If refuted, then hypothesis is not valid, if verified, it means, it still was not refuted.
          Truth is a very different phenomenon. Truth, either you believe or you don’t. You can’t prove or disprove truth. Patrice spoke about Euclidean geometry as being truth. Yes within its limited frame as a closed system or as Patrice called it, “attached context” it is truth.”

          • EugenR Says:

            Dear Patrice, probably i need to write a whole essay to explain these ideas. I tried to concentrate a whole philosofical system in a short statement. It probably needs much deeper explanation. Lets analyze just one word, hypothesis as compared to truth. A truth statement has to be analytic apriory, meaning its validity is within the statement itself. So are all the mathematical statements, but also definitions, that describe the meaning of the word. For example; black is dark. Black is a colour that absorbs the light. In a dark room everything is black, no light no colour, except black. So 1*1=1 is true within the mathematical system, but has no meaning in the real world. It as apriory. If i may ask you as a mathematician, does 1*1 have any meaning in the real world? As to the statement black is dark, doesn’t the word black include the attribute of dark?

            As contrary to it, hypothesis is just a statment, either false or truth. Yet it has its scientific meaning only and only if it can be refuted or verified by evidence investigated in scientific way. Scientific method has clear conditions. Among others it has to be repeatable under exactly same condition, then the previous result either refuted or verified. Every time you use GPS, you are experiencing verification of general theory of relativity, saying the gravity slowes down the time. If only once under certain circumstances the GPS will stop to work, and repeatable under the same conditions, the validity of the whole theory have to be checked.
            The only statement that can claim truth, has to fulfill the condition, that it is about causality, and it can predict result out of act. The prediction can be probabilistic or with 100% certainty, if such a thing exists at all. Sometime the prediction is probabilistic not because it can’t be predicted with certainty, but because Let’s take a chaotic system as weather. It’s scientific, using tools of probability,

            • EugenR Says:

              …..because there is no calculation capacity even in most advanced supper computers to calculate all the interrelations of each basic element on the whole global scale.

            • EugenR Says:

              Sorry for chaotic writing. It just slipped me.

              I meant to say that weather can’t be predicted with certainty, unless we will have quantum computers, that maybe will have the capacity to predict with certainty the weather.

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              Please don’t nestle comments too much! ;-). I am going to displace your comment to un-nestle it. BTW, my answer essay is progressing

            • EugenR Says:

              Sorry, I’m writing in between meetings or when bored during😀, on my mobile, and sometimes it slips.

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              I will have the essay posted today, in several hours: it’s basically ready, but got to run…

  2. Picard578 Says:

    Ideology cannot be a fruit of truth because it is a worldview, it artificially limits one’s ability to perceive reality. That being said, humans are tribal animals by nature. Liberal war against nationalism (an aspect of tribalism) will only produce even greater suffering, and more importantly, it will limit human ability to adapt. Differences cause conflict, but differences also ensure survival. Conflict needs to be managed, to an extent, but never prevented; because a society without conflict, is a dead society. And this is where organized tribalism, such as nationalism, comes in: managing the conflict, preventing it from being too destructive. Both world wars happened when nationalism was, in fact, at its weakest. Conclusion? Modern globalism, integrationalism, multiculturalism and immigrationalism may be leading us towards the another world war.

    Unrelated, but you might want to watch these videos:


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      “Ideology” = System of Thought, in my semantics. All and any ideology (for example Islam or the Aztec religion) has a definition of truth… which can be proven to be false! World War will happen first is the West is weak and divided (as in 1914, 1939). It is presently weak and divided. US pilots have problems breathing, while the French Air Force doesn’t have enough planes to train (they are all fighting!… Except for the nuclear strikes squadrons). The anti-Russian madness in Washington (somewhat justified) is taking a life of its own, and the cannibal in North Korea believed he can get away with anything….

  3. gmax Says:

    Yes! ALL WE NEED IS TRUTH!!!! Such a simple idea, yet so strong!!!!
    Keep them coming.

  4. Eugen Roden Says:

    Dear Patrice, probably i need to write a whole essay to explain these ideas. I tried to concentrate a whole philosofical system in a short statement. It probably needs much deeper explanation. Lets analyze just one word, hypothesis as compared to truth. A truth statement has to be analytic apriory, meaning its validity is within the statement itself. So are all the mathematical statements, but also definitions, that describe the meaning of the word. For example; black is dark. Black is a colour that absorbs the light. In a dark room everything is black, no light no colour, except black. So 1*1=1 is true within the mathematical system, but has no meaning in the real world. It as apriory. If i may ask you as a mathematician, does 1*1 have any meaning in the real world? As to the statement black is dark, doesn’t the word black include the attribute of dark?

    As contrary to it, hypothesis is just a statement, either false or truth. Yet it has its scientific meaning only and only if it can be refuted or verified by evidence investigated in scientific way. Scientific method has clear conditions. Among others it has to be repeatable under exactly same condition, then the previous result either refuted or verified. Every time you use GPS, you are experiencing verification of general theory of relativity, saying the gravity slows down the time. If only once under certain circumstances the GPS will stop to work, and repeatable under the same conditions, the validity of the whole theory have to be checked.

    The only statement that can claim truth, has to fulfill the condition, that it is about causality, and it can predict result out of act. The prediction can be probabilistic or with 100% certainty, if such a thing exists at all. Sometime the prediction is probabilistic not because it can’t be predicted with certainty, but because Let’s take a chaotic system as weather. It’s scientific, using tools of probability, because there is no calculation capacity even in most advanced supper computers to calculate all the interrelations of each basic element on the whole global scale.

  5. benign Says:

    Hi Patrice,

    I just saw this, and thanks for the response! And apologies to all the commenters I don’t have time to read.

    Yes, evolution says truth is dinner, and Pontius Pilate says, What is truth? What would you like for your last supper?

    And since the Axial Age, religion has insisted it has Truth, and people have believed it. Science has not done as well convincing people it has truth. They say religion has served empire well.

    Complexity it not necessarily progress. You err there. We shall see.

    So cheers, drink your wine, hold onto your meta-logic, so much more intelligent than any of us can muster. But what is meta-truth? Truthiness? (Hahaha.)

    I will cling to my ancient truth that God is Love, the force that holds the universe together.

    😉

    cheers,
    benign

    PS I am cautiously optimistic we shall avoid bloody war, because we have achieved a semblance of “rationality” in the modern world, but I worry that war has morphed into subtler forms of financial and literal slavery and starvation that will put the Plutos in charge for many generations.

    There is a great deal of irrationality about in the world (aka madness).

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Benign: thanks for the answer! I have another truth essay, incoming in minutes… This time answering Eugen R quite a bit… You are both a bit similar.

      The life is progress because it’s ever more complex (me)… and we see it (Jean Baptiste Lamarck). Well… I agree though that complexity is not always progress. The idea is not new: see Alexander slicing his knot, instead of un-entangling it, Nietzsche philosophying with his hammer, and I advocate to switch to H Bombs… H bombing Harvard, say, mentally speaking…

      War is a detail of plutocracy, as Jean Marie Le Pen didn’t say…

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: