The Pursuit of Truth

The term Universal truths in itself may be wholly incorrect. Since we use the term truth here, very loosely to explain the fundamental understanding between us, our self or ego, and the world about us. Arithmetic, and Geometry can be defined as fundamental, and classical laws, such as, for example 2+2 = 4. This is accumulative knowledge by way of reason, that has been realised by each of us, and is unshakeable, immutable. 2+2 can only equal 4, nothing else, this is certain. We were not born with this knowledge,(?), but we understand it through language, and cognition. The mind can agree on these absolute laws, and thus we can reach out and understand more complex ideas and models of everything we see, (and even do not see). This is not sensory perception, but something very different; The ability to reason, logically, and communicate this logic so that we each understand and concur.

Philosophers such as Rene Descartes, Berkeley, and Hume, helped formulate ideas on objectivism, and believed that this cognitive reasoning was more than enough to form a complex understanding of the world, and it’s problems. And by way of increased reasoning, overcome any obstacles and mysteries in it’s path. Yet logic alone cannot solve the mysteries of the unconscious mind, and has barely any answers to offer pertaining to the existence of God, or the real meaning of life. You may think as long and as hard as you can stand to endure, but will you ever find God with reasoning?

To think, is to analyse and make judgments within one’s own mind, and ego, and self, with limited knowledge and memory and experience; and to judge, is to compare and make comparisons as to what you think is true and what is not. There lies the dilemma. The truth, (and God), have no comparisons, there is no doubt within real truth, and no yard stick or measure to rationalise this truth with? Truth cannot be judged on any level of understanding, but moreover, truth may only be witnessed or experienced, such as an emotion. For example a positive emotion such as love.

Virtue, by way of truth, would appear to be the same. You may endeavour to be good, and learn the right thoughts, and right actions from a virtuous guide or teacher, yet does not one already know what virtue already is? is it just practice alone that distinguishes the virtuous person from another?

Socrates argues that virtue is a state that cannot be learned or attained, such as with that of knowledge or wisdom. That associations with virtue such as right thoughts and actions, or true opinions may be inherent in us, and do not rely on knowledge at all. Wisdom, and knowledge on the other hand, are born from experience, and can be passed down to successors, and disciples.

The following is an excerpt from Plato’s the 'meno'.

Socrates’ discussion with Meno regarding virtue:

[Socrates] I will tell you why: I have heard from certain wise men and women who spoke of things divine that - They spoke of a glorious truth, as I conceive.

Some of them were priests and priestesses, who had studied how they might be able to give a reason of their profession: there, have been poets also, who spoke of these things by inspiration, like Pindar, and many others who were inspired. And they say - mark, now, and see whether their words are true - they say that the soul of man is immortal, and at one time has an end, which is termed dying, and at another time is born again, but is never destroyed. And the moral is, that a man ought to live always in perfect holiness.

"For in the ninth year Persephone sends the souls of those from whom she has received the penalty of ancient crime back again from beneath into the light of the sun above, and these are they who become noble kings and mighty men and great in wisdom and are called saintly heroes in after ages."

The soul, then, as being immortal, and having been born again many times, rand having seen all things that exist, whether in this world or in the world below, has knowledge of them all; and it is no wonder that she, [the soul], should be able to call to remembrance all that she ever knew about virtue, and about everything; for as all nature is akin, and the soul has learned all things; there is no difficulty in her eliciting or as men say learning, out of a single recollection - all the rest, if a man is strenuous and does not faint; for all enquiry and all learning is but recollection.

And therefore we ought not to listen to this sophistical argument about the impossibility of enquiry: for it will make us idle; and is sweet only to the sluggard; but the other saying will make us active and inquisitive. In that confiding, I will gladly enquire with you into the nature of virtue.

Socrates in explaining the virtue of truth and geometry...

...But if he did not acquire the knowledge in this life, then he must have had and learned it at some other time? Which must have been the time when he was not a man?

And if there have been always true thoughts in him, both at the time when he was and was not a man, which only need to be awakened into knowledge by putting questions to him, his soul must have always possessed this knowledge, for he always either was or was not a man?

And if the truth of all things always existed in the soul, then the soul is immortal. Wherefore be of good cheer, and try to recollect what you do not know, or rather what you do not remember.

[Socrates] Then, Meno, the conclusion is that virtue comes to the virtuous by the gift of God. But we shall never know the certain truth until, before asking how virtue is given, we enquire into the actual nature of virtue.

The above argument by Socrates enters the metaphysical, and draws the conclusion that both truth and virtue are eternal ideals, and that they are also a contingent part of our true spirit mind or soul.

For details of the dialogue see here - Plato's 'Meno'

Back to contents..