Declaration of Reasoning: On Truth

“But howsoever these things are thus in men’s depraved judgments and affections, yet truth, which only doth judge itself, teacheth that the inquiry of truth, which is the love-making or wooing of it; the knowledge of truth, which is the presence of it; and the belief of truth, which is the enjoying of it, is the sovereign good of human nature.” — Francis Bacon: Of Truth, 1625

Declaration of Reasoning: On Truth
Originally Published: Dec-2023
Edited: Jan-2024

By Andrew Samaras

In times such as these—when society is in such a state of flux, being torn apart by manufactured division, alternative realities, and the terrains of social media where conversation has come to die—those who are looking forward to something better must revisit and pay special attention to an age-old philosophical question: What is Truth? The nature of truth is elusive, and its composition has evaded philosophers for millennia. Out of this one question unfurls a tapestry infused with the colorful threads of other deep and interesting questions. Is Truth something concrete and real, or simply an idea, or a mere concept? Is there such a thing as objectivity, or is reality simply an amalgam of your truth, my truth, and everyone else’s truths? Should people seek Truth, and if so, why? What is its value? Does it really have the power to set you free?

In practice, most people operate with a common understanding that the truth is a collection of facts about reality, that it is the world as it really is. This is the definition that the philosopher, Josef Pieper referred to when he wrote, “truth, indeed, not as something abstract and ‘floating in thin air’ but as the unveiling of reality.” Under this paradigm, true is a binary, where something either is or it isn’t, where reality is singular, and where Schrodinger’s cat really is either dead or alive. To say a true statement is therefore to say something that accurately represents the way the world is. A lie is the deliberate proclamation of anti-fact. Knowledge and wisdom are the ontological understanding of the nature of the universe and the perception of the core reality. This view presupposes the existence of an objective reality, which truths reflect. Facts, lies, and knowledge derive their meanings from the concept of this one reality, this absolute truth. They are extensions of something that transcends the biases of how people observe it.

That is the operative algorithm in the daily lives of most people for determining what is true, but there has always been an undercurrent of distaste for the adherence to an absolute truth or objective reality. In the more modern understandings of today’s intelligentsia, reality has an intrinsic diversity inherent from the diversity of those who perceive it. In the mighty halls of the great universities, a singular truth seems an archaic vestige from the concepts of people and times long ago, of which all ought now be ashamed. In much of journalism and scholarship, truth absolutism is too elegant, as to explain too much, but also not quite sophisticated enough to satisfy post-modern appetites. Diversity of truth is the ascendant ideology.

That the idea of objective truth has fallen in ill-favor and the swell of relativism has begun to crest is unsurprising. Religions have traditionally carried the torch for truth absolutism, and, as in most things, they have been terrible ambassadors on its behalf. Yet before picking up on the thread of relativism, there is another voice to whom belongs the first word: the camp that views this conversation as inconsequential or irrelevant.

A common and incidentally safe position to hold is that a discussion of the nature of truth is an inconsequential semantic debate between people who have perhaps forgotten what it feels like to work for a living. And yet can anyone dispute that the biggest issues, fiercest division, and greatest obstacles to cohesion that we face as a society are disagreements over what is true, over what is reality? The pursuit of true reality did not only sustain humanity as a species and afford civilization its greatest advances in science, technology, and philosophy, it is also the foundation of a healthy society. Climate change is a real threat; An election was stolen; Nuclear energy is safe; A global pandemic was the result of a lab leak; these are truth-claims, and it is tremendously consequential to the effort of progress whether or not an absolute truth exists. And while consensus on every major issue is not an attainable nor even desirable goal, for society to endure, the public must double down on the pursuit of truth as a core principle for their lives.

Upon the establishment of the importance of this discussion, objective truth is still often waved off by asserting the unknowability and imperceptibility of the core reality. If it cannot be known, then it is irrelevant, and society’s focus can be freed up for organizing around other principles, such as virtues like equity and inclusion. These are noble goals, but a principle rooted in anything other than the truth crumbles under the pressure of reality, and those left holding the pieces become no more than hopeless ideologues. By this token the primacy of truth is asserted and breaks open the cracks and crevices of agenda and fallacious thinking. Humanity has a vested interest in seeking out the truth. Although there may be facts about reality that are not discoverable to human beings, or if discovered, inconceivable and beyond understanding, truth exists independently from ideas of known and unknown, knowable or unknowable. A person may never arrive at truth beyond the clouds of their own perception. However, reality persists despite our inability to correctly understand or behold it all.

The loudest response to arguments for an objective reality comes from relativists, who view reality, truth, and knowledge as subjective and flexible things. Under relativism, truth is inseparable from the intrinsic frameworks and biases of the observers of reality, and it likewise does not transcend society’s dominance structures and power dynamics. For is it not instead that each person possesses their own personal and intractable truth, rooted in their cultural heritages, classes, and upbringings—each with their own rightful claim to the throne of the absolute, that the crown must be dissolved? Is it not instead that groups of people united by race, nationality, or identity each have a truth, rooted in the realities of their collective positions in society and the historical grievances they have endured?

Part of the appeal of this sort of relativism is that it fits neatly when packaged with today’s most trendy political obsessions and agenda which are being distributed to eager masses along with weapons and pictures of the enemy. Access to truth is treated as an honor rewarded for holding the correct religious or political views, or a possession of those who purchase it with exorbitant tuition fees to the right universities, time spent watching the correct news networks, and subscriptions to the right channels and Substacks. Relativism allows for the existence of alternate facts and is compatible with the idea that certain people and groups have priority-access to the truth, based on considerations other than the work done ascertaining it or the closeness of their positions to actual reality. But what happens when ideas about reality are mutually exclusive? Which truth is prioritized? This is the question that is playing out in much of today’s policy debates across our world?

There are many logical problems with relativism, as Plato argued in his exquisite critique of the theory in the Theaetetus. The chief problem is the sheer amount of logical gymnastics that must be done to keep relativism from being self-refuting. If the theory of relativism is to be considered true, then it must be the instance of absolute truth for everyone, because, by definition, objective truth cannot exist only for you and not for me. It quickly becomes clear that even the relativist will acknowledge the existence of a truth for everyone, in the context of certain claims. She will defer to expertise on certain subjects, such as science and medicine. Yet in order for someone to be an expert in something, to be more knowledgeable—to be closer to the truth—in anything, something must be true. For words like true, false, fact, and is toreally have meanings, something must really be. Reality is the only arbiter of truth. As Bacon said, “Truth[…]only doth judge itself.” Truth cannot simply be a matter of public consensus or agreement, and it is not beholden to the credentials or bona fides of the person unwittingly spouting lies.

Taken to its natural conclusions, relativism dissolves into meaninglessness, but neither has unified truth delivered all the answers humanity seeks. Seeking truth is a difficult thing to organize around, because so much of reality is unknown. Neither scientists, nor politicians, nor philosophers can say definitively what consciousness is, or how to bring an end to war, or how to parent one’s child. Complicating things further is the fact that truth, as a first principle, is detached from other principles we value, such as ethics, virtue, and wellbeing. How should those who are pursuing reality react to truths that could conceivably be discovered that may be incompatible with commonly accepted views on morality? However, by acknowledging and dedicating society to pursuing reality, we can help reignite the fuel of human curiosity and unleash its power toward answering those questions and many, many more.

A dedication to uncovering and exposing truth appears in society as an attitude. Individuals in such a society place a high value on liberating principles, such as freedom of speech, access to quality education, and enabling scientific and artistic pursuits. They create institutions and organize systems around these values, and they promote leaders who embody them. Since society cannot survive with truths and facts differing between people, barriers to access to information would scarcely be suffered in this society. Since there are better ways of ascertaining truth than others, the scientific method would garner more merit than unsubstantiated postulating. Recognition of expertise, along with genuine and persistent open-mindedness would be prevalent. People would be quick to acknowledge their biases, and they would transparently attempt to correct for them. Disagreements would be welcome as a way to sharpen and hone positions, striving to bring everyone closer to reality.

The words of the philosopher, occultist, and founder of a new religion were an unlikely choice for me to have tattooed on my ribs. At 19 or 20, I had only recently unshackled myself from religious belief. The concept of truth, and the conviction that there is only one version of real had a gravity and momentum for me. It was, in fact, in my dedication to pursuing the truth that I had renounced the deep faith and theological convictions with which I was raised. Nevertheless, it was from The Psychology of Hashish by Aleister Crowley that I chose the phrase for my inscription. Vi Veri Vniversum Vivvs Vici. By the power of Truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe. I hold true to their meaning to this day, with one deviation. Truth, and the knowledge thereof, are not power, but freedom.

For those who believe that the current level of disagreement over fundamental truth-claims and basic facts about reality is untenable, and for those to whom a society bound to truth is desirable, a personal expedition towards understanding the essence of reality must be embarked upon. We must be transparently introspective, relentlessly searching, and painfully allergic to dogma. We must be honest ourselves, and willing to speak to and hear from anyone. In doing so, freedom—from the desire to lie, from PR and propaganda and manipulation, from imposed priorities and agenda; the freedom to listen to anyone, say anything, and seek knowledge anywhere, is both our responsibility, and our reward.