Veritas Lost: The Desecration of Truth on the Altar of Subjective Will

HUBERT E. DEVINE
​

Is Truth Dead?

It has become common for people to say we are living in a post-truth era, an era in which there is claimed to be little or no truth or certainty about any existent reality external to one’s self-consciousness. Thus, any number and any kind of alternate realities may be asserted―as many as there are people. There is a striking casualness to this as if it were of no greater importance than, say, a change in the weather or a fashion faux pas on the red carpet.

It appears truth is dead or, if still clinging to life, that it no longer really matters. Many have come to regard truth as an antiquated, optional, dispensable, arbitrary notion predicated on individual subjectivity. We are, nevertheless, quick to maintain there is my truth, and may grant, if it suits us, there is your truth, but we are reluctant to allow there can be any the truth. We sigh, recognizing how prevalent these assumptions are, understanding implicitly that it is not possible to have rational discourse about the nature and importance of truth with those who regard it as irrelevant. We shake our heads, seeing no lifeline we may throw to truth.

Indeed, truth has always struggled against the chains of irrationality, falsehood, superstition, ignorance, political ideologies, cultural biases, and will lacking morality. One might suggest, however, that not since the musings of ancient Greek sophists has truth been thought to be so little binding as today. Almost 2500 years ago, Protagoras declared, “Of all things, the measure is Man. Of the things that are, that they are, and of the things that are not, that they are not.” With Man as measure of truth, the determination of reality―of what is, and what is not― was understood to be grounded in individual subjectivity. It is this position, this thinking, that as an assumption characterizes the predominant contemporary mindset.

Philosophically, it took Plato to identify the problem lurking in sophistic subjectivity, which is the impossibility of knowing anything, the annihilation of an intelligible world. It fell then to Aristotle to wrestle this beast to the ground and to explain the nature of existent
reality, to elevate knowledge above opinion, and to secure the possibility of modern science and other forms of knowing.

Contrary to today’s assumed preeminence of subjectivity, one might argue that the objective existence and functioning of the universe for billions of years, and of what we think of as the laws of nature (discovered through mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology) have taken no direction from human consciousness to be what they are and function as they do. Gravity is not a matter of opinion, the speed of light not a conviction, the second law of thermodynamics not subject to my belief or will. Ethics, morality, and law are not optional if there is to be civilized society. As the accordance between perceiving, thinking, speaking, acting and existent (actual) reality, truth is the lynchpin, the sine qua non, holding together the viability and structure of knowledge, politics, morality, and indeed, of civilization. Can such provocative assertions about truth actually be true?

Human beings, both individually and collectively, have a way of forgetting, of unlearning, of ignoring hard-won truths of the past. And so, we find ourselves again leaping from the rock of rationality into a murky abyss of intellectual, political, and cultural relativity, where the prevailing order is the law of the jungle. Not so much the law of the jungle as the kind of rational order poetically articulated by Rudyard Kipling in The Jungle Book―
“As the creeper that girdles the tree trunk, the law runneth forward and back; For the strength of the pack is the wolf, and the strength of the wolf is the pack.” ―but rather a law of the jungle where rationality is eclipsed by irrationality, and where subjective will, bloated and gloating with power, tries little hide its naked aggression or to clothe itself with morality and virtue. There are no limits. Anything goes. Anything. The Komodo dragon is unchained, roaming freely at will. And its appetite is huge.

On a global level, when one looks beneath the glossy veneer of diplomatic niceties and protocol usually on display among nations, the basic nature of international relations comes into sharper resolution. At this level, the law of might holds sway. It is primitive and raw. The big and strong, the mighty, take from the weak and less dominant. Whether to take territory or resources, or to impose ideology, it is the imposition of subjective will collectively felt and enacted. Unlike packs of wolves or prides of lions competing for dominance and resources, however, human beings have both the proclivity and capacity to kill and/or subjugate other human beings, members of their own species, beyond any rational limit. For centuries, the advances wrought by our technical intelligence have outpaced our collective morality, and the consequences could not be more lethal.

The Disintegration of Society as Absence of Objective Order

What is happening across many nations runs deeper than the superficial playing out of political and cultural polarization. It is fundamentally the manifestation of a flawed logic, a thinking that assumes subjectivity alone determines truth, and that there are not, or ought not to be, any external limits on will.

This Zeitgeist suggests there is no objective reality, or if there might be, that it cannot be known. The further implication is that rational objective order may be regarded as arbitrary or accidental, and not necessarily as real or binding. This means we may choose to see ourselves as not subject to laws of nature, the rule of law, constitutional articles of governance, justice, or other forms of objective order; but rather, that they are or ought to be subordinate to unrestrained will, that the only limits on will should be those it imposes upon itself.

To the extent that this may be an accurate synopsis of an already entrenched or emerging dynamic in various nations, societies, and cultures, one might argue that it is a prescription for a menacing dichotomy. This is characterized, on the one hand, by confusion and anarchy among citizens, where every citizen can be a tyrant and must be permitted to do whatever they may want, and, on the other hand, by various forms and degrees of political upheaval―of governments struggling to find anchors for policy and action that may secure the well-being of citizens, but lapsing instead into subjectivity writ large as despotic will to power, the erosion of law and constitutional governance, and other dysfunctional paroxysms.

At the risk of overstating this problem and its likely results, one might suggest that nations and societies in which these fault lines are dominant will inevitably move toward tearing themselves apart, committing collective suicide wide-eyed and in terror or smothered by mind-numbing irrationality. Their citizens see that all the fruit of a cherished orchard has gone bad, realizing too little or too late that they have been fertilizing its trees with poison.

Objective order as the presupposition of, and as present in, all forms of rational structures, systems, laws, political entities, and so on, is what keeps things together and minimizes the likelihood of their falling apart, of dissolving into a soupy nothingness. This involves the integration and working together of the key elements of any system or structure. Objective order and structure reflect a quantum condition, a reality, of low
entropy, which for human beings and the means needed for survival is a condition as necessary as it is desirable.

The disintegration triggered by out-of-control subjectivity reflects a quantum condition of high entropy, a reality tending toward increased disorder, which if not checked or reversed will inevitably result in the eventual disintegration and dissolution into nothingness of whatever that entity or structure is. For nations and societies, it is their collapse, first into chaos and anarchy and then perhaps, if fortunate, their transformation into something more rationally sustainable.

Subjective Blinders and One-Sided Ideologies

When subjectivity and will are assumed to be primary, and objective reality thought irrelevant or unknowable, subjectivity cannot but devolve into one-sidedness. Subjectivity is easy and feels natural. Opinions, beliefs, convictions, and values come to us with little intellectual effort. We try them on until we find those that seem to fit and feel right―the comfortable clothing of our mind. They become part of our identity. It is clothing we are loathe to change. The discernment of truth, by contrast, is not so easy. It requires intellectual discipline, commitment, and the willingness to accept truths that may hurt or make us uncomfortable, as much as they may enlighten.

In the absence of objective truth as a kind of completeness, we tend to take up one side or another of ideological oppositions, whichever reflects most comfortably or closely our subjective leanings―left vs. right, progressive vs. conservative, socialism vs. capitalism, democracy vs. autocracy, and so on. Most often, we fail to see the logical nature of the relationship between such oppositions and cannot advance beyond one-sidedness. We remain locked inside our ideological cages, firm our subjective conviction of being right.

We rejoice when our side triumphs and wields powers, just as we writhe when the other side wins. Always, we demonize the other side. We deride their principles and resist their agenda. We hunker down, waiting hopefully, yearning for the dialectic of contrariety to swing back to our side. Or we actively protest. There are minor variations and nuances, but for the most part, it is subjectivity blinded by ideology and bound to will that characterizes contemporary thinking, politics, and much of life.

Politically and culturally, this dynamic has morphed into various forms of one-sided ideological and practical extremism. To illustrate this, albeit imperfectly, it may be helpful
to highlight a few examples in relation to ‘progressive’ and ‘conservative’ ideological constructs.

Extreme progressive ideology manifests as a denial of objective reality wherein, for example:

• subjective sensitivities and feelings override facts whenever the two spheres may collide,
• supposed cultural progressiveness becomes unchallengeable dogma,
• remnants of the past that offend contemporary values must be altered or annulled, and guilt and reparations for the wrongs of past generations borne by current generations,
• subjective will is assumed as primary to such an extent that any and all assertions about human identity must be accepted as valid; so that, one may claim that a male is a female, or the opposite, or both, or neither, or that a person is a member of another species, and that each should be treated in whatever manner might be individually demanded,
• a widespread belief is held that modern-day conservatism is really a thinly disguised conspiracy of fascism intent on destroying freedom of choice and dismantling democracy, and
• any rational questioning or disagreement about the foregoing matters is identified as hatred or violence.

And so, irrational progressiveness shakes its fist and demands everyone comply
with its subjective dogma of self-serving entitlement.

Extreme conservative ideology manifests as a denial of objective reality wherein, for example:

• knowledge and education are attacked as enemies of faith and belief,
• scientific facts and other demonstrable truths are repudiated as bothersome irritants if they conflict with conviction,
• laws and the rule of law are ignored, circumvented, or treated as insignificant impediments to the exercise of will as power,
• boldface lying and the conscious propagation of falsehoods are considered harmless or amusing forms of subjective (self) expression, a kind of personal quirkiness for which there is no shame or accountability,
• a widespread belief is held that modern-day progressiveness is really a thinly disguised conspiracy of communism intent on destroying religion, family, and traditional values,
• democracy is nothing more than a high-sounding idea manipulated by elites and intellectuals to promote their agenda, and
• the tyranny of the one is gleefully embraced in place of the tyranny of the many.

And so, irrational conservatism looks upon rationality and truth with suspicion and enmity, as it demands everyone comply with its subjective dogma predicated on fear and ignorance.

Each form of one-sided extremism draws energy as much from hostility toward the other as from its own limited ideology, which each contorts to fit its goals and tactics. At the same time, each is supercharged in its one-sidedness by various social media that serve up algorithms―the jet fuel of division―to confirm preexisting biases, deepen one-sideness, and exacerbate hostility.

Logic, Definition, and Truth

To correct the errors in these forms of irrational subjectivity as essentially errors in thinking and willing, it is important to understand the relevance of fundamental logical principles and of definition.

The expression ‘It is what it is,’ has entered common parlance in recent years, typically used in a tongue-in-cheek way to suggest that the thing in question is not more than it appears to be, that it has limits or limitations beyond any appearance or pretention to the contrary. The words themselves seem simply to articulate a tautology, and to say nothing particularly meaningful. But this is neither the whole nor most important part of the story.

To say something ‘is what it is’ is perhaps a surprisingly profound statement, reflecting the laws identity and non-contradiction, which, along with the law of the excluded middle, are generally regarded as the three foundational laws of logic. Aristotle maintained that these laws are axiomatic and required no proof, that is, that they are self-evidently true. They are to be taken as the starting point of reasoning and of being able to think, say, or know anything about anything, and to distinguish truth from falsehood.

These axioms of logic, and thus of thinking, along with the notion of predication, are what make definition possible. When we can think and say what a thing is and is not, and when we can attach qualities/attributes to it, we define it and differentiate it from every other thing. It is definition that imparts meaning and imposes rational limits and
boundaries on words, thinking, and the objects of thought, and prevents thinking and knowing from collapsing into an infinite indeterminateness where anything can be anything else.

Being able to think and know existent reality, what anything actually is, requires a thinking that adheres to the laws of logic and understands the necessity of definition. To identify and declare the truth of anything, as the rational unity of subject and object in thinking, is otherwise impossible.

When we fail to understand, or consciously negate, the necessity of definition and of accepting that a thing is what it is, we create a circumstance where we can think and say anything we wish about that thing. What this means is that every thought and statement is possible true but, equally and at the same time, possibly false. And this is inextricably linked with the problematic assumption, already noted, that reality and truth are only or essentially products of subjective consciousness.

These are the (il)logical knots we need to untangle to understand how it is that otherwise seemingly reasonable people, and more significantly some of the world’s most powerful figures, so routinely and capriciously disregard reality and truth, disgorging instead a steady stream of falsehoods, lies, and exaggerations. While this may indeed be attributable in some cases to psychopathy, the logical basis of what is going on is that such people are evincing the result of assuming there is no objective reality, that truth is essentially subjective, and that subjective will gives one the power to claim reality is whatever one may wish it to be and say it is.

Necessity of Objective Order

Human beings, even the skeptics of objective reality, live their lives in such a way as to confirm their acceptance of an objective order, a rationality that grounds existence and knowledge. Most accept this as a matter of common sense, seeing no need to provide philosophic or scientific proofs. We know that a thing is what it is and is not something else. We know we cannot say an ocean is a mountain, or that a mountain is high and the same mountain not high, at the same time and in the same respect, and be thought to be saying something comprehensible or true.

We are born and are nurtured, go to school, work at jobs, raise families, attend church, sing along at rock concerts, go on trips, drive cars, build bridges, plant gardens, launch spacecraft―thousands and thousands of big and small actions that confirm day
after day our implicit belief in, and explicit commitment to, an existent objective reality that subsisted before us, is not derived from our subjectivity, and continues when we are no longer alive.

Though rationality and objective order permeate everything in the universe, it seems a supremely difficult task intellectually and emotionally for human beings to come to terms with the reality that the universe does not exist on our account, does not exist for us, that it is not all about us. We may be persuaded that our subjectivity is somehow primary and is what matters the most in existence. But there can be no greater anthropocentricity than to think that the universe or a multiverse, that all that is, is conditioned by or in some way conditional upon our subjectivity. In the language of religion, this would be to say that God exists because of us, that God exists for our sake, that we are the ultimate and final cause, not God.

The subjective consciousness may claim that one fantasy or another or any form of non-existence is reality, or that a lie is the truth, but such claims do not make the non-existent exist, or turn ignorance into knowledge, or falsehood into truth. The very possibility of making such claims presupposes the primacy and rationality of actual existent reality. To assert as the truth, or as axiomatic, that reality and truth are simply or primarily subjective is self-contradictory, resulting in the inescapable conclusion that everyone’s claims would be equally true, and equally false. This irrational subjectivity is a moth drawn to the light of truth, but, believing itself to be that light, sees only a shadowy image of itself. It flutters its wings against the dim light reflected from the mirror of its own vanity and falls to the ground.

Considered somewhat more thoughtfully than what may be a matter of common sense, it may be understood that subjective consciousness can only know itself to be a subject insofar as it distinguishes itself from what is other than it, from otherness as objects. This means: 1) that for there to be subjective consciousness, there must be objective reality, and 2) more significantly, that objective reality must be ontologically and logically prior to subjective consciousness. And this means that existent objective reality exists in and of itself, and not as a condition of subjective consciousness. The positing of reality and truth as essentially subjective or as subordinate to will is really the ultimate nihilism, the obliterating of both truth and existence. On its premises, not only can nothing be known, nothing can be.

Veritas Vincit

If the problems as here outlined are indeed problems in and with thinking, occurring on individual, political, and socio-cultural levels, their solutions, too, must take their point of departure from thinking. As suggested in various ways already, this has to be a thinking that is logically sound, and that recognizes the absolute necessity of existent objective reality and the primacy of rationality and order. Accordingly, it has to be a thinking that recognizes the subordinate nature of subjectivity and, especially, of subjective will. It is only thinking of this kind that can allow the determination of truth to unfold as the proper alignment or concordance of subjective perception, thinking, saying, and action with what is real and actual.

Most importantly, for nations and societies to flourish and not self-destruct, subjective will must be understood to be restrained by, and to find its proper expression within, rational objective order, ethics, and morality. Reason and limits must be brought to bear on subjective will and power pursued as ‘the good’, where the attainment and wielding of unlimited power become the telos (τέλοσ)―the ultimate purpose, that for the sake of which―of politics and governance. Ethics and morality must be understood to circumscribe the kind of practical, technical intelligence (at which human beings excel) that has largely left morality in its wake; a technical intelligence that rapes the planet, subjugates the human spirit, and can do no better to try to secure peace among nations than to aim toward a balance of terror based on mutual assured destruction, which is to say on acknowledged madness.

The fate of democracies and the rule of law rest precipitously on the possibility of shifting our thinking individually and collectively in these directions. Things might improve on a superficial level in the absence of such a shift. Wiser leaders might emerge, citizens may begin to see more clearly and experience more directly the gathering momentum toward chaos and collapse and work toward change; but unless the disordered logic is fundamentally corrected, any fixes can only be partial and temporary. What is needed is an adjustment in human consciousness, not a making of more castles in the sand.

There is no easy formula, no quick fix, to stop the tumultuous storm of subjective will, declaring by its actions that truth is irrelevant and, if not already dead, no more than a discretionary artifice. What we can say against this, however, is that there has always been attached to truth a kind of sacredness that transcends our everyday struggle to master our subjectivity and limitations, that transcends political and cultural distortions of reality. We may not always think we know the truth of anything or perhaps even want to know it, but
one might hope there is a quiet recognition that it is essential to our capacity to know anything and to live well as human beings in free, life-giving societies and nations.

Though rarely stated, we have embraced for millennia a shared covenant to protect and honour truth, recognizing that the pursuit and worship of its opposite can only result in our downfall. At a deep level, we understand, we know, we even feel viscerally that truth somehow reflects that which is actual and real, that it is what gives life to meaning, and meaning to life―that, like wildflowers growing under dead leaves and debris, it abides, waits its time, but eventually, always, comes forth to conquer the decay and darkness.

---