Is the universe, is reality in
general, an utterly incomprehensible field of chaos in motion?
The answer is quite simply no.
There are many philosophers,
however, writing books and teaching in universities who cling to the pretense
that this is remains a relevant question.
Is there a universal order, are
there universal truths, do we as human beings possess the ability to discern
them?
The answer is yes, though many have
argued that we do not.
Many have argued that the human
intellect does not include the ability to arrive at any definite understanding
of, or comprehensible answer for perennial philosophical questions such as
these:
What is the meaning of life?
What is the nature of reality?
What is the purpose of existence?
Many people never even bother to
grapple with these questions.
Many of those who do, find that their
understanding of these matters changes over time, with experience, through
dialogue.
Many others take the position that
there are no answers to be had:
That the meaning of life is
dependent on the narrative we weave around our experience, and nothing more.
It is relative.
That everything we perceive and
think of as “reality,” is actually "maya," an illusion, and there is
nothing more.
It is relative.
That given the inherent relativity
in the structure and meaning of our lives there can be no purpose beyond the
purposive force of the individual will.
It is relative
Among those who hold to these
relativistic views, individuals are more and less adamant about the central proposition,
that there is no truth.
Some would unequivocally deny that
there is any universal truth at all, while others would admit to the
possibility of such universals, and at the same time asserting they are beyond
our comprehension, inexpressible in human language, and thereby moot.
Philosophical relativism endorses
the notion that the quest for knowledge is a futile endeavor.
This is futilism,
relativistic-futilism.
This school of thought suggests
that nothing can be known, that there is no truth, and that to question
anything is an exercise in futility.
The futilist demands that people do
not analyze their lives.
The futilist does not believe that
people are able to make common bonds based on a common understanding.
Relativistic-futilism permits any
idea, permits all ideas, all thought processes, every emotional reaction, regardless
of the way in which they might contradict one-another.
For the relativistic futilist, all
social norms are equivalent, disregarding evidence, ignoring logic, reason, and
scientific deduction.
There is the no truth, each person
has their own reality, everything is false, our lives are illusions.
The futilist will state that the
human mind is a vehicle, not bound by the laws of reality.
The futilist will reject logic,
because logic has rules, dictating the use of inflexible parameters that govern
thought.
These intellectuals will say that
nothing can be known for certain, because no-thing can be proven.
It is true that the meanings and
values ascribed to words and symbols are dependent upon the agreement of the
parties in communication.
This is true, nothing can be taken
for granted
We agree that 2 + 2 = 4 because we
agree on the value assigned to the numerals two and four, and we agree on their
value in relation to each other.
We are able to do arithmetic and
speak to one another in the arithmetical language because of this.
Our ancestors were able to chart
the progress of the planets and the stars in their movement across the night
sky because of this.
Because of this, we are able to
build skyscrapers and bridges, airplanes and rockets, to construct telescopes,
draw maps, make charts and navigate.
We are able to split the atom, send
and receive radio transmissions, digital communications, watch television,
listen to music, write letters, send mail, send e-mail and all manner of other
things that make up the fabric of our life in the 21st century.
When the relativistic-futilist
states that no-thing can be known for certain, they have planted the seed of
their argument's undoing
If knowledge of the truth is
something impossible to arrive at, then no premise for any argument can be
established, this includes the premises that support the arguments of the
relativistic-futilist themselves
The relativistic-futilist must
remain true to the principles of uncertainty that they adhere to, and because
of this, the futilist should not speak or write, and afflict the rest of us
with their non-sense.
A genuine belief in relativistic-futilism
should manifest itself in the lives of its adherents as intellectual paralysis.
Sadly, this is not the case.
The relativistic-futilist commonly
asserts their point of view as if it were the only universal truth that may be
apprehended by the human mind, they will disallow logic, dismiss the
constructions of reason, and berate intellect on every other front.
They will say that intellectualism
is weak, limited, and subject to personal and societal conditioning.
They will say that all personal
judgements are merely individual perceptions whose conclusions are dominated by
the prevailing culture.
While those criticisms are
reasonable, they are not ultimately determinative of anything.
The futilist will ignore those same
factors when they assert that the validity of their own arguments, and thereby
deny themselves, for nothing can be considered true, known or proven in the
relativistic scheme.
How can any-thing, idea or concept
be true if everything is uncertain?
Catch 22, nothing can…
The arguments of the relativistic-futilist
amount to intellectual laziness, and should be rejected.
I exist, I know this. It is true. I
do not require Descartes’ cogito to
arrive at this conclusion.
It was never in doubt; my life, my
breath, my hunger, my direct contact with reality confirms this for me.
I
am real, that is true, and so are you. That much I know, if I know nothing else I do know
that. The world around me is not a figment of imagination.
Reason allows me to extend this
understanding to all of reality. As logic follows, I am required to acknowledge
each thing, and each person in my experience, existing independently from my
perception of it.
This is not to say that I
understand them perfectly, that I am able to see them in the full spectrum of
light, or that I know their story, and its antecedents.
That is not necessary.
The basic fact of their existence
is not subject to a relativistic point of view.
That much is certain.
I will not except the idea that I
am illusion, a figment of some other imagination. That is contrary to the
health and well-being of my ego, and my experience contradicts it.
I will also not assume that
everything I experience is a figment of my imagination, that the reality I
witness is dependent on my perception, such a level of megalomaniacalism is
ridiculous.
I am real, that is true, and so are
you.