Examining, “There are no absolute and fixed truths.”

Nietzsche’s famous phase, “There are no absolute and fixed truths,” is at first glance a pessimistic view of reality. But if one looks again, taking into account what truth is, Nietzsche’s face grows even longer.

We define truth as a god’s-eye view of the universe – the way the universe actually is regardless of varying worldviews. Men in a cave lit by a flickering fire watch the wall as shadows cast by unseen objects flit by. Inevitably, they begin to argue about what the objects could be. Always they assume that one or two or three of them could be correct in their comprehensive speculations though some leave the argument in frustration. Generally, it is acknowledged that a man who says the shadow is a vampire bat and the one who says it’s clearly a dove cannot both be right.

Necessarily, there must be but one truth, and if so, then all truth is absolute. But if all truth is absolute, how can Nietzsche mention “truthS” plural? By definition, truth is truth without any equals to share the position. “TruthS” is an oxymoron. Well, of course everyone knows there’s no such thing as “absolute truthS”. That doesn’t address absolute TRUTH at all.

But if we revise his statement to “There is no absolute truth” it becomes “There is no truth,” and what a singularly depressing worldview that is…. BECAUSE THE PHRASE STILL HAS PROBLEMS! See, if truth is a god’s-eye view and there is no truth, then there is no god’s-eye reality for the men in the cave. It follows that since a bat is not a dove but there are advocates of each, every man must be wrong (or every man must be right; but if there’s no wrong, there’s no right and decisions will never be reached!). Therefore, the man who says there is no god’s-eye reality but only shadows on the wall is not telling the truth even if it is the truth that there is no truth but only shadows on the wall…..

See what I mean?

 

If the world decides the truth is that there is no truth, brains explode. It’s an impossible puzzle unsupported by any logic. So when one concedes that there is no absolute truth, one admits that we are all hopelessly insane. If you are willing to claim that “even if we cannot understand it, it is true – I mean the way things are actually – I mean the realit…. oh, you know what I mean. There is no truth, but that’s just the truth of it – I’m sure some aliens out there know what I mean!” you might as well just turn to religion because it has a better explanation than you do, and anything approaching mysticism should be accompanied by hope. Both explanations of truth require faith, but at least religion has an explanation at all.

See where we’ve come – to God! I mean, we have been talking “god’s-eye view” here.

To many, religion explains those shadows on the wall – shows them the god’s-eye view which God gave them through prophets and inspired writers. That way they can at least think they know what truth is. Agnostics allow for some God being but don’t believe humans can understand him. They would say there is an absolute truth, but that humans don’t have access to it. Atheists are the most likely to subscribe to the “There is no truth view”, having faith that someday we will be able to understand that paradox. They are awaiting some sort of enlightenment.

One can see within these three categories that only one does not rely on faith – agnosticism.

It seems like the best, most reasonable option, huh? To address its shortcomings, let’s look at a passage from a well-known religious manuscript which describes a man who called himself the way, the truth, and the life.

John 18:37-38 Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” 38Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?” 

Pilate proceeded to stand by and watch Truth murdered. Pilate could have been an agnostic, could have been an atheist, but whatever he was, we know he was apathetic. An atheist at least wrestles with the big questions; an agnostic shunts them aside with a bitter “What is truth?”

I charge you, no matter who you are, to never give up searching for truth. Some choose one candidate, some another, but as long as you choose a side, you have a chance of winning in the end.

Poor Nietzsche. He lost.

Farewell.

 

 P.S.

Here are some further questions and thoughts ~ rather more passionate than the previous:

If truth does not exist, then anything is permissible. If there is no almighty viewpoint, then the homicidal maniac’s views are on democratically equal footing to Jesus’s. It just depends on which basket you plop your values into. If you value the admiration of others, you might be generous and kind – or cutthroat, deceptive, and cruel, depending on the kind of people you hang out with – and value those traits in others. If you value social wellbeing, you might let the slaves go so that a small sector of the country’s population might be glad, or you might  leave well enough alone because a war would destroy families and flatten towns to the ground. If you value happiness, you might try to be generous and kind but you might go on murder sprees because, heck people don’t matter and it gives you endorphins. And in these situations, who is doing right and who is doing wrong? Nobody! For if there is no Truth, where is the measuring stick? What is the standard? How have you any right to even discuss morality? It doesn’t exist!

The life goals of a relativist are selfish with nothing higher to believe in – whatever goodness he has comes from social pressures and indulgent coddling of the ego. In other words, there are purely rational reasons for him to act good… and many moral relativists admit themselves that they are wonderfully nice people…. but these rational reasons admit insecurity and a bowing to social convention. A strong man would dismiss social pressures and walk about confidently with perfect self esteem… wait a minute…..

Huh.

What a coincidence.

Looks like those psycho killer people – you know, Caligula, etc. ….. all those psychopaths –

aren’t so crazy after all.

NOT.