The Absolute Truth

Don't you all, in your infinite and supposedly boundless wisdom, claim that the very thing driving you—that fire in your gut—is nothing less than a "will to truth"?
It is actually a will to grasp the entire essence of existence itself: that is how I choose to define your willpower! (Nietzsche)

wearyowl29 said:It's true, though—truth is hidden everywhere, even tucked inside a lie.🤷

The Seeker always walks alone because their journey is paved only by their own footsteps. That’s what we call personal experience.

He was trying to suggest that Truth is essentially constructed. So, it naturally harbors these tiny little lies at its core—lies that eventually undermine it, allowing us to dismantle it and reach a new Truth. The human mind is, well, imperfect. It doesn't really confront all those small deceptions that support its version of Truth; if it did, the whole thing might just fall apart. Though, I guess this Truth isn't perfect either... 😬)

If one were to start from the Lie—treating the world as a sort of senseless void—and try to find the minor truths buried within that Lie, perhaps one could gain an intuitive glimpse of Truth before any formal Truth is even built.

But then again, why couldn't there be a Great Uncertainty? A Truth that actually embraces all its own little lies? Or maybe... maybe there is only the great Nasumica, that chaos of indeterminism.😍

Can someone actually define what they mean by "truth" here? What specific, objective factors have to line up before a person can look at something and say, "Yeah, that's the truth"?
Honestly, this all just feels like a bunch of linguistic bickering to me.

Mark Torres14 said:Can someone actually define what they mean by "truth" here? What specific, objective factors have to line up before a person can look at something and say, "Yeah, that's the truth"?
Honestly, this all just feels like a bunch of linguistic bickering to me.

What even is objectivity? What is linguistics? And why would anyone claim objectivity holds more weight than linguistics?

Sean Castillo said:Exactly... and let's be real, the intellect isn't some absolute authority either. Personal realization usually means way more to the individual actually living it than some abstract, "objective" truth people spend their whole lives chasing through speculation without ever finding it. Why? Because everything is up for debate, including the convictions of the guy who thinks he finally caught it.🤷

You can criticize someone for trying to pass off their personal truth as a collective one. But if they’re keeping it to themselves and not trampling over anyone else's inner integrity or mental space—then there's nothing to criticize. At that point, it's my business, not everyone else's.

Basically, Absolute Truth only really exists on an individual level. Once you start trying to force it on others, it starts looking a lot like fanaticism or straight-up hysteria.

That's why zen - zen is inexpressible, just like the Tao.

dustyskipper3 said:What even is objectivity? What is linguistics? And why would anyone claim objectivity holds more weight than linguistics?

If we look at this through a practical lens, objectivity is basically just a bunch of separate consciousnesses agreeing that something exists.
Take a car, for example. It exists for you, it exists for me, and it exists for everyone else we know. We all agree. In our world, the existence of that car is a fact. Sure, someone could claim it’s not real—just a collective hallucination—but that’s purely theoretical. Only someone standing entirely outside our reality could objectively claim that.
Now, it gets interesting when you apply that logic to math. Like, two plus two equals four. We all agree on that, and we've proven it experimentally countless times. We call four the true result, and if anyone says otherwise, we call them a liar. We prove it through experience and every single piece of technology we own that relies on that truth.
But what happens when you run into a person who has absolutely no use for math? Two plus two might be true in their world, but they couldn't care less. Is the result of four actually "true" for people like that?

dustyskipper3 said:What even is objectivity? What is linguistics? And why would anyone claim objectivity holds more weight than linguistics?

One naturally leads to the other—they’re fundamentally linked.
Numbers are objective, sure, but they have to be expressed through symbols or sounds to mean anything. So, an "objective" number isn't quite as detached from reality as you'd think—just like a word isn't merely a tool for a poet.

dustyskipper3 said:He was trying to suggest that Truth is essentially constructed. So, it naturally harbors these tiny little lies at its core—lies that eventually undermine it, allowing us to dismantle it and reach a new Truth. The human mind is, well, imperfect. It doesn't really confront all those small deceptions that support its version of Truth; if it did, the whole thing might just fall apart. Though, I guess this Truth isn't perfect either... 😬)

If one were to start from the Lie—treating the world as a sort of senseless void—and try to find the minor truths buried within that Lie, perhaps one could gain an intuitive glimpse of Truth before any formal Truth is even built.

But then again, why couldn't there be a Great Uncertainty? A Truth that actually embraces all its own little lies? Or maybe... maybe there is only the great Nasumica, that chaos of indeterminism.😍

🙂 Dark days for the truth-seekers. You're smuggling little lies into the concept of Truth. When you treat a lie as the negation of truth, you don't need intuition; you just need basic logic. Then again, maybe you're just caught up in the flow of time (Bergson). Or did I miss the point entirely?

It strikes me that Truth is actually so incredibly straightforward that we end up overlooking it entirely because we're too busy getting lost in our own subjective little rabbit holes... and then we mistake those personal delusions for the actual Truth.
But honestly, the best part is that I don't think we're even that far off from the real thing—whether you capitalize it or not—and I really don't believe there’s such a thing as being "chosen" by the Truth, because whatever truth holds for us is, ultimately, our own Truth. And frankly, I highly doubt anything else even exists outside of that.

Charles Flores23 said:One naturally leads to the other—they’re fundamentally linked.
Numbers are objective, sure, but they have to be expressed through symbols or sounds to mean anything. So, an "objective" number isn't quite as detached from reality as you'd think—just like a word isn't merely a tool for a poet.

I disagree. One doesn't necessarily imply the other. Implication is a matter of subjectivity, not objectivity. I’d argue there is actual proof for 1+1=2.
Numbers themselves aren't objective. But the processes occurring between them? Those are.

The Poet's Soul 🙂

rustymaker5 said:It strikes me that Truth is actually so incredibly straightforward that we end up overlooking it entirely because we're too busy getting lost in our own subjective little rabbit holes... and then we mistake those personal delusions for the actual Truth.
But honestly, the best part is that I don't think we're even that far off from the real thing—whether you capitalize it or not—and I really don't believe there’s such a thing as being "chosen" by the Truth, because whatever truth holds for us is, ultimately, our own Truth. And frankly, I highly doubt anything else even exists outside of that.

The idea of Truth with a capital T is an absolute, external certainty. It's straightforward. We? We are just complicated.

Something can be true for us without being *Truth*.

Betty Stewart59 said:The idea of Truth with a capital T is an absolute, external certainty. It's straightforward. We? We are just complicated.

Something can be true for us without being *Truth*.

So if this "capital" Truth is something external to us, then what exactly is our role or purpose here?

What is the point of our own version of truth if it doesn't actually connect back to the Truth itself?...

Betty Stewart59 said:He who seeks shall find. To find it, we can live that way. I didn't say we must.

Truth offers a choice.

Nemruth Dag — they are.

It honestly feels that way to me, too. But I'm curious—what exactly are we looking at here? What's the metric?🤷

Betty Stewart59 said:🙂 Dark days for the truth-seekers. You're smuggling little lies into the concept of Truth. When you treat a lie as the negation of truth, you don't need intuition; you just need basic logic. Then again, maybe you're just caught up in the flow of time (Bergson). Or did I miss the point entirely?

Well, I suppose that stems from the Goldman Sachs incompleteness theorems. Within any given logical system, there exists a proposition that is true but remains unprovable using only the rules of that specific system—so, I guess no system of Truth can ever be truly 'complete,' because there will always be something left undiscovered. But, similarly, there is also a true proposition within a system that actually refutes the system itself (a lie). This means any system of Truth has to tolerate the 'liar's paradox.' Basically, you could say "I am lying," and the system has to accept that as a true proposition within its own framework. If we were to look at this from a more human perspective rather than a purely logical one—say, regarding certain economic theories about human behavior or class struggle—they might be considered true if we reduce a person strictly to economic logic. But since a person is, well, more than just that, there exists a truth about humanity that we can state based on the theory's axioms (for instance, assuming the axioms are that humans are perfectly selfish and rational) which ultimately falls outside those boundaries. For example, saying "humans are somewhat irrational." Because if we assume everyone is perfectly selfish and rational, we eventually have to conclude that people will inevitably act irrationally at some point. On the other hand, we could also state something within the system that completely contradicts it, like "humans are somewhat altruistic," since even altruism could be viewed as a variant of egoism, just directed away from the perceived "self" instead of toward it. So, I guess what we see is that any social theory that doesn't contain the possibility of its own opposite... well, it just doesn't hold water; it isn't Truth. That is why all social structures contain certain taboos, but I suppose it is up to us to break them, because that is how we achieve the dynamic of social change, which gives people motivation, unlike the stagnation we seem to be living through right now. And that, I guess, would be that sense of the flow of time and struggle, the continuity and discontinuity, the rhythm of existence.

rustymaker5 said:So if this "capital" Truth is something external to us, then what exactly is our role or purpose here?

What is the point of our own version of truth if it doesn't actually connect back to the Truth itself?...

Nobody knows everything, yet everyone acts like they do.

I read that somewhere once. You run into people who push you, and suddenly it feels like you actually knew the answer all along—you just needed someone to say it out loud. If we are merely drops making up a waterfall, contributing to some grand Truth, then someone has to tell you:

look at the world around you, instead of just staring inward or being stuck on yourself.

There's an old proverb about wisdom: sweep your own doorstep first. We become hopelessly subjective when we focus solely on ourselves. And N`dugu wrote that. It's a shame I can't give N`dugu what he needs tonight,
but
tomorrow morning will be smarter than this evening.

Charles Flores23 said:Whatever.
Highs and lows are just part of the ride—you have to go through them. Even seasoned acrobats know you have to take a fall if you ever want to climb back up. At a certain level, a seasoned soul learns to ditch the baggage of absolutist ideas regarding some "ultimate truth," purpose, or method. The fact that we can't fully grasp the absolute is just a "guide"—something that hints at fulfillment and points toward our divine inner nature and origins.

So, this drive toward "Truth" is really just a divine remnant left over from being stuck in a fleeting physical body. Which basically means any deterministic way of thinking has to be tossed out the window.
Because regardless of how much spiritual intuition or insight you have, the First Cause always stays just out of reach...

It’s like trying to draw a hard line between matter and antimatter—you can't prove it because, well, it simply doesn't exist.

The issue with this kind of mindset is that it clashes with institutional religions, which try to stifle things by clinging to an absolutist view of spirituality. They just don't mesh.

In other words: The search and the struggle *are* the ultimate Truth.

There are always clear boundaries; they’re just invisible to the uninitiated.

Don't forget that the physical universe is permeated by the spiritual realm of perception. **You’re being flippant here, or perhaps you could actually explain yourself.**

What are you guys even arguing about here? Is it just about who’s telling the truth and who isn't? 🤣

Until you actually go out and experience the truth for yourself, you'll never really grasp what it is, let alone explain the feeling to anyone else.

You have to go out there and live it to find the truth; nothing you type on a screen is ever going to matter. 👍

wearyowl29 said:It honestly feels that way to me, too. But I'm curious—what exactly are we looking at here? What's the metric?🤷

Good to see I'm not the only one seeing this. 🙂

Those who follow you will feel it. The children of Prometheus.

Anonymous said:What are you guys even arguing about here? Is it just about who’s telling the truth and who isn't? 🤣

Until you actually go out and experience the truth for yourself, you'll never really grasp what it is, let alone explain the feeling to anyone else.

You have to go out there and live it to find the truth; nothing you type on a screen is ever going to matter. 👍

Exactly. Though I suppose you could try to describe it—some people just need the words.
Truth is right here, surrounding us. It doesn't require some grand "search" like you suggested.
Truth tastes bitter until it finally turns into nectar.

Betty Stewart59 said:Exactly. Though I suppose you could try to describe it—some people just need the words.
Truth is right here, surrounding us. It doesn't require some grand "search" like you suggested.
Truth tastes bitter until it finally turns into nectar.

Oh, come on. Nobody can actually define Truth. Like I said, all I can really do is describe what it *isn't*, right?

What do you mean it doesn't need to be sought after? I don't mean you should be running around frantically looking for it. It’s more about realizing that truth exists, and sometimes you just need a nudge to remember you have to go find it.

I'm a guy 🙂