Philosophers and the Pursuit of Absolute Truth
Why do philosophers accuse one another of speaking nonsense? The answer lies in the fundamental challenge of defining and achieving reason and absolute truth. The quest for truth, a central concern of philosophers, reveals a significant divide in understanding of this concept, leading to disputes and accusations of nonsense. This article explores the nature of reason and the pursuit of absolute truth, examining insights from various philosophers, including René Descartes and St. Thomas Aquinas.
Introduction to Reason and Absolute Truth
Reason, traditionally central to a person's capacity to think, varies among individuals. This article questions why philosophers struggle to agree on its definition and application, and why this disagreement leads to accusations of nonsense. The process for achieving truth, as outlined in this discussion, involves both a necessary and a sufficient condition. The necessary condition is achieved through proof, while the sufficient condition is achieved through disproof, ensuring a hypothesis is the only possible explanation for observed phenomena.
The Nature of Reason
Reason is the pursuit of truth, a never-ending process of disproving hypotheses to find the one that fits all observed situations. Unlike the deterministic and subconscious habit-brain process, which merely draws upon known information, reason requires a cognitive approach that eliminates all other possibilities. This means that while absolute truth may exist, a reasoning person can never claim to know it due to the unknown hypotheses that could exist.
The decision-making process within the habit-brain occurs without free will and is based on habitual knowledge, whereas the pursuit of truth requires exploring unknown hypotheses and disproof. This distinction highlights the importance of acknowledging the limits of habitual reasoning and embracing the concept of an unknown future.
The Role of Descartes and Skepticism
René Descartes, through his cogito ergo sum or "I think, therefore I am," aimed to identify truths that the human knowledge library could be built upon. However, his initial process of doubting everything involved proving the truth through the necessary condition (proof). This cognitive process was purely within the habit-brain, or self, and not the pursuit of reason.
Descartes concluded that he could only trust his own existence as being absolutely true. He recognized the limitations of the self and relied on reason to maintain self-awareness. This developmental path led him to the realization that he, too, could not fully trust his mind, especially with complex problems like “224.” This revelation underscores the need for a continuous process of disproof to achieve truth, rather than merely doubting.
Aquinas and the Existence of God
St. Thomas Aquinas attempted to prove the existence of God through the disproof of various hypotheses. However, his approach faced a challenge in understanding the nature of God, who is beyond all conceivable attributes. The concept of God as "beyond all that can be conceived" aligns with the definition of truth that cannot be disproven.
Aquinas's efforts to prove God's existence through reason highlight the distinction between proving truth (the necessary condition) and maintaining the understanding that absolute knowledge of the divine is impossible. This distinction is central to the philosophical practice of reason, emphasizing the pursuit over the final claim to truth.
The principles of reason and pursuit of absolute truth as described in this discussion are in line with various philosophical and religious concepts. Enlightenment, for example, is not just a state of knowledge but a continuous journey of understanding and self-awareness.
Conclusion
The divide among philosophers on the nature of reason and absolute truth is not due to misunderstanding but to the inherent complexity of these concepts. By embracing a process of continuous disproof, philosophers can maintain the integrity of their pursuit of truth, despite the impossibility of absolute certainty. This journey of enlightenment, as articulated by Descartes and Aquinas, is a fundamental aspect of philosophical practice.
Understanding and accepting the limits of our reasoning are crucial steps in achieving a deeper form of enlightenment, where one recognizes the process of seeking truth as more valuable than claiming absolute knowledge.
Keywords: Reason, Absolute Truth, Philosophical Disagreement