The Impossibility of Proving - a basic summary

It is impossible to prove that something is true in an absolute sense, that is, prove it is innately true. To do so would first require that the mechanisms or arguments used in the proof do indeed lead to truth. However, that requires that those mechanisms or arguments, used to show the former mechanisms or arguments are true, be shown to lead to truth. Ad infinitum. At some point, we may even question whether the idea of proving leads to truth, yet that is not in question because the definition of proving is the assembling of mechanisms or arguments to reveal truth. However, that in no way means that there are mechanisms or arguments that will lead to truth (for reasons given above). We cannot even be sure that the mechanisms or arguments are innately true themselves.

If something were innately true, we would not have to prove that it were true because we would know it innately. This is true with the senses: sight, hearing, taste, touch, smell, and such. Though the blind and the deaf may not see or hear, it does not nullify the fact that it is true that the person reading this sees and possibly hears. I may be the only person who exists to experience such sensations, yet the person reading this might make the same claim. I cannot prove that they experience them, though it does not nullify the fact if they do. Likewise, I experience the sensations and someone else cannot prove that I do not, however, they are unable to prove the fact to themselves, the fact being that I experience such sensations. To them, I speak what they think is only true for them and thus they make think that I speak merely myth. Somehow, that is quite unlikely, thus if someone reads this and contemplates on the notion that I might not be capable of any sensations, they ought to reconsider the idea - for if I write these things, it does not prove that I can experience some sensations, but there is great evidence for another soul in the world like them.

Insult on Modern Philosophy

Thursday, February 04, 2010

8:35 PM

Some years ago, I learned about what might be called "modern philosophy". By this, I do not mean simply any philosophy of modern times; I speak of a specific philosophy, or set of philosophical beliefs, methods, or practices that have been the result of the lack of meaning in the lives of the philosophers. That is to say, modern philosophy results from rejecting anything fundamental, including principles and logic and most especially meaning. Without logic, principles, or meaning, everything in the philosophical universe is reduced to nothing or thrown away. With this modern philosophy, man is attempting to throw away everything and then question what remains.

Modern philosophy, contrary to the idea that man might be enlightened from exploring nothing, in effect reduces life to a hopeless pit in which man can do nothing to escape. He can search for truth but is told by modern philosophers that he cannot prove it. After modern philosophy throws everything away, man automatically assigns himself the task of attempting to rebuild his world from nothing. It is natural for him to take on this task. However, this is a futile task because modern philosophy is not designed to unlock the meaning of life; modern philosophy is designed to condemn man, to leave him wretched in meaninglessness and seal his lips from protest. Man can in no way argue against this philosophy on its own ground. Its proponents make it appear as authority over this realm, but it is silent. It cannot hear the arguments of man nor is it supposed to. It is like a god that is not made of wood or stone but a god that is imaginary, a myth, enthroned by rebels who are tired of having a real god to serve. It is as if somehow modern philosophy is a set of rules that forbid arguing against it, as though it is something we all must obey and yet it gives no orders other than the implied command that we must not be confident in anything, even truth. It attempts to take truth and disestablish it. Furthermore, it causes men to lose a realistic perspective. In the real world, truth does exist, logic can lead to truth, and things can be proven as true, that is to say for tangible events, the probability that an argument concerning an event is providing truth is so great it must be that truth.

What are we to do with modern philosophy? Modern philosophy must serve only as a door, signifying not reality as it has been said to be, but as a doorway into what reality should have been. The difference between what is presented to man by modern philosophy and what is presented by reality is the fact that there is a God in reality. Modern philosophy attempts to snatch from man logic, truth, and meaning, whereas God gives all of those things to man. To some extent, what modern philosophy presents allows us to realize things about reality that cannot be noticed in it. It allows us to see the relativity of things. However, only when one returns to reality does one see that absolute truth is not disestablished, but rather, self-established. All things are connected by such relativity, but each real thing contributes by its relativity to absolute truth. Absolute truth is truth that applies to all things, whereas relative truth (if it is to be true) is the relationship between things from the perspective of one thing. God, who is absolute truth itself, is then a relative and absolute in and of Himself. Thus, it is not contradictory to say that truth is both relative and absolute: relative to God and established, and is thus absolute, because of God's own existence.

What modern philosophy presents, that is, the result of the absence of God, is also the most undeniable proof that there is a God (a god who is, at the very least, truth itself and author (in a manner of speaking) of logic and meaning)! In order to have reality, there must be a closed system, that is, a system isolated from the nothingness that modern philosophy presents. What else can establish such a system that is not truth itself?