Wrestling with the nature of truth...
Here's what I've been thinking lately: is truth that is spoken really true if the actions that accompany the speaking deny that truth?
In one of my classes I'm taking, we've been discussing whether we should approach reality objectively, subjectively, or both. It's interesting that we feel locked into those two categories. Modernity has so gripped us that there seems to be no options between the polar opposites. Yet, even in the wedding of the two poles, I am dissatisfied with the result. Here is what I wrote after class two weeks ago:
"So, I pondered the proposed dichotomy last night and tried to think of might be compromised in the polar language of that paradigm. I think the problem is that both objectivity and subjectivity are utterly individual. Namely, objectivity supposes the ability to observe without affecting--a supreme isolation. Subjectivity, on the other hand, supposes the utter individuality of being unaffected--truth depends only on what is apprehended through my experience and exercise of reason.
Both of these neglect the role of "outside" influence. All people are people exactly because we exist in relationship with others, and therefore truth cannot be ascertained in any way other than relationship. Even what we would consider objective truth, or absolute truth, cannot be other than relational. From a Christian perspective, God would be the only one privy to absolute truth, and yet, God exists in relationship--both within the Godhead and with humanity created in his image. Therefore, absolute truth is relational in its purest form.
I think Paul states it nicely in 1 Corinthians 8:2,3
"If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know; but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him."
Seen this way, it could be argued that truth and knowledge are not things to be "had" or things to master. Rather, they are to be lived in, just like relationship. In a sense, saying something is true without living in that truth is like lying. Perhaps this is what James is getting at in his famous faith/works passage where he says the demons know God is one and they shudder, but the implication is that they do not live accordingly. Thus, it is not really truth to them, just as faith without works is not really faith."
Last night I tried to express it in poetic form:
The jewel of truth is so clear
it can't be seen without the edges,
the light of comprehension without focus.
Embedded firmly in the cold earth
it fools the treasure-hunting eye
into the slow lull of somnolence.
He who has ears, let him hear,
lest his voice confound the blind.
© 2006 Eliaser Ramón Chaparro
As always, I welcome comments, critiques, and questions.
In one of my classes I'm taking, we've been discussing whether we should approach reality objectively, subjectively, or both. It's interesting that we feel locked into those two categories. Modernity has so gripped us that there seems to be no options between the polar opposites. Yet, even in the wedding of the two poles, I am dissatisfied with the result. Here is what I wrote after class two weeks ago:
"So, I pondered the proposed dichotomy last night and tried to think of might be compromised in the polar language of that paradigm. I think the problem is that both objectivity and subjectivity are utterly individual. Namely, objectivity supposes the ability to observe without affecting--a supreme isolation. Subjectivity, on the other hand, supposes the utter individuality of being unaffected--truth depends only on what is apprehended through my experience and exercise of reason.
Both of these neglect the role of "outside" influence. All people are people exactly because we exist in relationship with others, and therefore truth cannot be ascertained in any way other than relationship. Even what we would consider objective truth, or absolute truth, cannot be other than relational. From a Christian perspective, God would be the only one privy to absolute truth, and yet, God exists in relationship--both within the Godhead and with humanity created in his image. Therefore, absolute truth is relational in its purest form.
I think Paul states it nicely in 1 Corinthians 8:2,3
"If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know; but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him."
Seen this way, it could be argued that truth and knowledge are not things to be "had" or things to master. Rather, they are to be lived in, just like relationship. In a sense, saying something is true without living in that truth is like lying. Perhaps this is what James is getting at in his famous faith/works passage where he says the demons know God is one and they shudder, but the implication is that they do not live accordingly. Thus, it is not really truth to them, just as faith without works is not really faith."
Last night I tried to express it in poetic form:
The jewel of truth is so clear
it can't be seen without the edges,
the light of comprehension without focus.
Embedded firmly in the cold earth
it fools the treasure-hunting eye
into the slow lull of somnolence.
He who has ears, let him hear,
lest his voice confound the blind.
© 2006 Eliaser Ramón Chaparro
As always, I welcome comments, critiques, and questions.