To review, we are discussing what it means to say that Christianity is true, which, of course, presupposes that we can know what truth is.
Conveniently, -- at least for those of us in the trailer Thomist park -- Christianity both implies and relies upon a realist metaphysic in which truth = the conformity, agreement, or correspondence of the intellect to reality: "truth is that which is."
This is how any and all truth is "justified," precisely. Supposing you think the rope is a snake, or Biden isn't one, then your belief is unjustified. Yes, man is prone to illusion, but illusion presupposes an underlying reality.
Indeed, even argument per se presupposes a reality we can know. This much is inarguable. In reality, everyone is a realist and can only pretend to be otherwise.
But nor is this an atomistic universe, so one truth will cohere with others, both horizontally and vertically. Reality is more like a holofractal organism of internally related parts than a machine with only exterior relations.
Indeed, this is why it is possible for (merely) biological organisms to exist. Otherwise it is impossible to account for the appearance of internal relations in a purely exterior universe.
So, Christianity is not restricted to purely "Christian" beliefs, but rather, rests upon epistemological and ontological assumptions capable of justifying "beliefs in general -- for any possible claim which wants to count as true."
To merely say that knowledge of truth is possible is to have said a great deal. Indeed, if the opposite is the case, what is there to say? Could there ever be a "community of the unreal" in which everyone exists in their own private Idaho, with no relationship to the real? In which every man is tenured?
Yes and no. But I don't want to get into progressive politics just yet. There will be plenty of time for insultainment.
We have a right to true beliefs because prior to this we have a belief in truth, ultimately because truth itself has rights. There can be no right to be wrong, because falsehood is unjustifiable, precisely. We have a relationship of dependency on the truth that is prior to our knowing it.
If truth is dependent upon us, that's just the metaphysical nonstarter known as rationalism, whereby we are enclosed in our own psychic preconceptions projected outward.
Of course, people tend to be more or less entangled in their own projections which are taken as real, but that's just mental illness or ideology (but I repeat myself). Part of the "maturational process" involves the ability to distinguish these from reality, AKA reality testing.
Come to think of it, ideology can be regarded as a sublimated form of mental illness. It exists on a spectrum from the relatively mature to the sadistically primitive, but a defense mechanism is nevertheless a defense mechanism, ultimately against reality.
Voegelin has much to say about such ideological deformations and epistemic pathologies rooted in what he calls closed existence,
in which there are internal impediments to a free flow of truth into consciousness and to the pull of the transcendental.
He also refers to the eclipse, which is a
perverse closure of consciousness against reality; a state that may become habitual and unconscious, but never entirely free from the pressure of reality and the anxiety produced by the attempt to evade it.
This is why ideological activists are always so paranoid and persecuted. We don't need them but they need us, and desperately, as receptacles for their projections.
If the leftist is not persecuting, he feels persecuted.
In and by the content of his own mind. For example, where would they be without "white privilege" or "Christian nationalism" or "the patriarchy" to project into? They would have to be with themselves, which would by intolerable. Imagine a Joy Reid or Keith Olbermann having to tolerate their own heads!
The world is the projection of God.
You have a point, Petey, but there is a difference between pathological -- AKA "forced" -- projection, and what is called by the wise "diffusion of the Good." Really, it's the difference between love and hate, life and death, boundless creativity and leaden predictability.
Yada yada,
Eventually the practice of justifying beliefs will have to appeal to beliefs which we... and our interlocutors hold true, but for which no reasons are given.
In other words, Gödel, for there will always be at least one truth for which our system cannot account: "beliefs terminate arguments when no reasons need to be offered for them."
*Ironically*, it would be illogical to maintain that one's first principle can be reduced to logic. Rather, our First Principle simply is. Just don't pick one that cannot justify any entailments from it, for example, a-theism, or relativism, materialism, or subjectivism, each a form of cosmic irrationalism.
It is not reasonable to pretend to enclose man in reason, for truth always transcends it. Which reminds me of a crack by Schuon to the effect that things aren't true because logical but logical because true -- or that no purely logical operation can furnish the premises on which it operates.
Radical doubt is impossible, for there must be at least one thing that is not or cannot be doubted: "rational conversation and argument do not require, but rather preclude, holding all of our beliefs (including our criteria of truth) open to doubt at the same time."
What is the one Undoubtable Principle? We'll get into it in the next post, but the guy who said the following is my kind of guy:
Anyone who does not love the truth, has not yet known it (Gregory the Great Guy).
4 comments:
They would have to be with themselves, which would by intolerable. Imagine a Joy Reid or Keith Olbermann having to tolerate their own heads!
Sounds like almost literally hell.
Hello Dr. Godwin, Julie, readers unseen all, may you be well fed and with the luck 'o the Irish this eve:
Now what would a Leprechaun say about truth? What is the Leprechaun viewpoint?
According to McAnally the universal leprechaun is described as follows:
"He is about three feet high, and is dressed in a little red jacket or roundabout, with red breeches buckled at the knee, gray or black stockings, and a hat, cocked in the style of a century ago, over a little, old, withered face. Round his neck is an Elizabethan ruff, and frills of lace are at his wrists. On the wild west coast, where the Atlantic winds bring almost constant rains, he dispenses with ruff and frills and wears a frieze overcoat over his pretty red suit, so that, unless on the lookout for the cocked hat, ye might pass a Leprechawn on the road and never know it's himself that's in it at all."
By profession they are reluctant shoe cobblers. They know each customer will also be hoping to be given treasure, as the Leprechaun is always in possession of some gold, and some have an entire pot of gold which they will visit to count the coins periodically.
I've never interviewed a Leprechaun. However, there can be no doubt that such exists or there would never have been such a profusion of detailed accounts of him.
There, I've dispensed some truth for the blog readers to mull over. 'Tis a wonderful world, is it not? Those who seek a gentle yet tasty sipping whisky know that Irish whisky is the one you want, whether Jameson or Bushmill's matters little.
A wee bit of cheer would be just the thing this evening, would it not? I tip my glass to ye all.
Love from that Blarney old Trench, gads what's that smell? Is that cabbage boiling?
As expected, bona fide insultainment is simply not going to happen with current LLMs. This shouldn't really be surprising. The payload of a Gagdadian pun or one-liner is in the unique unpredictability of the juxtaposition. LLMs are all about predictability. It turns out we get some uncannily human-like analysis from these things, but don't expect anything other than very lame mimicry when it comes to generating guffaws and chortles.
This holds true even when I inveighed upon the big 1.7 trillion parameter goliath to which I have access. It's capable of remarkable feats of "serious" analysis of OCUG. It can explain how humor works to make the blog unique, but it cannot itself generate high-quality wordplay.
Usually I post samples of the latest AI attempts at the Gagdad gestalt -- but they're just too hokey to reproduce.
So instead I'll recalibrate a bit and go for something more pragmatic. A tool that will answer questions about the content of OCUG (recall that the AI has ingested the entire blog in great detail) with the earnest, naive strength of technology. Also of use, I think, a list of links to past blog entries that the AI believes are relevant to a specific topic or question.
More soon.
Today's post may go the great Between of Three-ality that AI could never model.
Post a Comment