Truth is not absolute; it changes over time.
Logically speaking, this is a surprising statement and cannot be true. If there is no absolute truth, then everything is relative. Your personal view is just as valid as anybody else’s. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao and others thrived on exactly this type of thinking. If there is no absolute truth, then these men have no judge because there is no basis to judge them. “Truth is not absolute; it changes over time:” If this statement excludes itself or includes itself, it is a self- decimated proposition to borrow from Ravi Zacharias. If this statement excludes itself, then it is positing an absolute that contradicts absolutes. If it includes itself, then it has just defeated itself because even the statement “Truth is not absolute; it changes over time” means that even this statement will change over time. So this statement is decimated; it cannot be true. To say that people have “life, liberty and justice” or “freedom” would not be true either because it too is impermanent and changes over time.
I shudder to think at the implications of such type of reasoning as the above statement or strange-creed. Not only for Western Civilization but also for the Eastern world, which may be coerced into agreeing with this statement above and entering the world of shadows or progressivism with no goal or anything at all to reach towards. At least with the goal of reform, we have what G.K. Chesterton said, was at least, a form to return-to. The goal, at least, is clear here. With Progressivism there is not clear goal. It is the philosophy of no anchor but only mindless moving forward. To what? We shall all soon see.
This is indicative of the logic of the day. We have failed the proper philosophical training in logic of our kids by such a statement as above. We have failed to teach them to think! Simply, this error was made by removing The Absolute from the day-to-day discussions and reasoning of people and our youth. This basic understanding was known to the ancient sages who looked at the discursive reasoning as a way to higher intellect. The Socratic dialogue was essential in discussing things to their absolute parts, in other words dissecting every sentence down to each word so there was no thing overlooked or confused. This was why Confucius was so keen on expressing the need for the clarifications of words; otherwise, we could never truly know what each person is saying. Each word needed to be clarified by each person in the discussion. This was parsed-out in Socratic or Confucian discussions so everything was clear. If this was not done correctly, then no discussion could take place. For there was no anchor in the words to base the discussion and therefore the discussion was meaningless.
Today in the West or "the age of political correctness", this error is so large that it is really surprising that it is not seen. My guess is that is well known, but the saying that it is difficult to swim upstream is apt here. With no Absolute or no Primal Principle behind all things, there can be no pursuit of truth. The only truth in this sad scenario is change and change has no room for absolutes, it nullifies them claiming that law even is not absolute but only in flux. So if it comes in-mode to kill your brother rather than love them, then so be it; a piece of paper signed by the founders of The Constitution will serve as of no value when the lync-mob is at your door. In fact it will server as toilet paper for the backsides of those who employ the whip as a means to an end. Human dignity and sacredness do not come from a book or a document no matter how old, it can only come forth from The Divine God who gives man his rights and freedoms within certain boundaries that complete the Divine life and its pursuit. The Incarnation of the Divine in Christ shows God among us in a complete revelation of God and not as deists would think of god as the old man far removed from his own creation, indifferent and dead. Such a god is an idol and not of any useful purpose to man and his thinking and doing.
Where/when did this fallacious thinking take hold of us? And what is the remedy? These are the questions that will need to be answered for our generation and the children now growing up under this doomed fallacy. In a reform ideology it assumes a return to a form that exists as a concrete reality or absolute. In a progressive ideology of moving forward there is only the law of endless change, no moral indicator, no road signs to what is correct or Absolute, but only a move to oblivion where truth is relative and everyone is free to do mostly as they please. The sacredness of each individual is at stake, but will we hear the Voice of God within the party's roar of music, rich food, and strong wine? The humanness of man is at stake. Will we move forward to the abolition of man (C.S. Lewis) and enter into the age of death and decay within the forces of change, never sated, never reached, and never more...? Dare we wait and see?
I shudder to think at the implications of such type of reasoning as the above statement or strange-creed. Not only for Western Civilization but also for the Eastern world, which may be coerced into agreeing with this statement above and entering the world of shadows or progressivism with no goal or anything at all to reach towards. At least with the goal of reform, we have what G.K. Chesterton said, was at least, a form to return-to. The goal, at least, is clear here. With Progressivism there is not clear goal. It is the philosophy of no anchor but only mindless moving forward. To what? We shall all soon see.
This is indicative of the logic of the day. We have failed the proper philosophical training in logic of our kids by such a statement as above. We have failed to teach them to think! Simply, this error was made by removing The Absolute from the day-to-day discussions and reasoning of people and our youth. This basic understanding was known to the ancient sages who looked at the discursive reasoning as a way to higher intellect. The Socratic dialogue was essential in discussing things to their absolute parts, in other words dissecting every sentence down to each word so there was no thing overlooked or confused. This was why Confucius was so keen on expressing the need for the clarifications of words; otherwise, we could never truly know what each person is saying. Each word needed to be clarified by each person in the discussion. This was parsed-out in Socratic or Confucian discussions so everything was clear. If this was not done correctly, then no discussion could take place. For there was no anchor in the words to base the discussion and therefore the discussion was meaningless.
Today in the West or "the age of political correctness", this error is so large that it is really surprising that it is not seen. My guess is that is well known, but the saying that it is difficult to swim upstream is apt here. With no Absolute or no Primal Principle behind all things, there can be no pursuit of truth. The only truth in this sad scenario is change and change has no room for absolutes, it nullifies them claiming that law even is not absolute but only in flux. So if it comes in-mode to kill your brother rather than love them, then so be it; a piece of paper signed by the founders of The Constitution will serve as of no value when the lync-mob is at your door. In fact it will server as toilet paper for the backsides of those who employ the whip as a means to an end. Human dignity and sacredness do not come from a book or a document no matter how old, it can only come forth from The Divine God who gives man his rights and freedoms within certain boundaries that complete the Divine life and its pursuit. The Incarnation of the Divine in Christ shows God among us in a complete revelation of God and not as deists would think of god as the old man far removed from his own creation, indifferent and dead. Such a god is an idol and not of any useful purpose to man and his thinking and doing.
Where/when did this fallacious thinking take hold of us? And what is the remedy? These are the questions that will need to be answered for our generation and the children now growing up under this doomed fallacy. In a reform ideology it assumes a return to a form that exists as a concrete reality or absolute. In a progressive ideology of moving forward there is only the law of endless change, no moral indicator, no road signs to what is correct or Absolute, but only a move to oblivion where truth is relative and everyone is free to do mostly as they please. The sacredness of each individual is at stake, but will we hear the Voice of God within the party's roar of music, rich food, and strong wine? The humanness of man is at stake. Will we move forward to the abolition of man (C.S. Lewis) and enter into the age of death and decay within the forces of change, never sated, never reached, and never more...? Dare we wait and see?
No comments:
Post a Comment