The truth does not matter, but who can install it.
F. Nietzsche maintains, "the appearance is the living reality itself acting that, ironic with itself, had come to make me believe that here there is nothing but appearance, will-o'-the-wisps, goblin dances and nothing else."
The installation of a 'truth', be it by any group, solely by the use of the power they usually exercise, leads to producing an incongruous situation, on the one hand the enlightened believers in possessing the truth and on the other the total skepticism of not considering that it is possible to achieve a certain degree of veracity.
In the first case, the enlightened ones, José Rafael Herrera, expresses: “As is known, every sentence –every oratio– is made up of a verb and a predicate. In Spinoza's key, verb is principle, substance. Predicate is attribute and mode. Preaching is the action of those who predict, of those who are empowered to anticipate what is imminent and say-it-before. He is, then, the one who warns, because his function consists precisely in preaching the verb, the truth that he already knows, because it has been revealed to him. The "bearer of the truth" anticipates the event, warns what is coming and, therefore, must take the pre-visions and act accordingly. He is, all of him, an "illuminated" by the effect of the spark, by the radiance of divine revelation. He is the glare itself of the flash in the face of the bearer of the "philosophy of the gun". And that was what Isabella the Catholic could see in Torquemada's sullen countenance –and still smudged by the abrasive flashes of truth–: at the queen's request, and by means of a bull issued by Pope Sixtus IV, the bruciante is appointed general inquisitor, directly dependent on the Spanish Crown. His cruelty and fanaticism against the "enemies of the Christian faith" - particularly against the Jews - are still the object of astonishment. Spain has paid dearly –and with it a good part of the western world– for the hatred spread by that sinister character, in the name of truth”. How many 'bruciantes', 'torquemadas', exist and are imposing their truths on the rest of society, as possessors, illuminated by a superior being, of the absolute truth.
At the other extreme, skepticism, which leads us to think that nothing is true, and that even this is not true either, leaves us in not being able to know, in that knowledge, not even as a form of adaptation and mastery of the nature is useless.
In ancient times, Plato already warns of the need to respond to this dilemma and in the "Allegory of the cave" he expresses that the world we observe, which we call reality, is appearance. The true, the truth is beyond what we see, in another dimension, it is not in this world. If the truth is absolute, there is no room for lack, it cannot be a part, it has to be the whole. For what he solves it by creating a world of 'Archetypes', today we would say in another dimension, of which what we see are more or less similar copies.
Darío Sztajnszrajber, a contemporary argentinian philosopher, maintains “the question of truth moves between two poles: it exists and it is impossible, or it does not exist. Although it does not exist, you cannot stop looking for it, but if it exists, it is not for us”
Aristotle, he maintained, that 'the truth is hidden behind appearances, so it must be revealed'. Plato's archetypes were located in things, in reality, in essences, which must be apprehended, made conscious.
The truth must be sought, it slips away from our gaze like a wild animal that feels the danger of being found and devoured.
“Doing philosophy is the permanent construction of an existential insecurity; we flee when we fight with the certainties of that numbness that we provoke at the same time, because we seek a knowledge that we know we will never achieve”
Which means living in appearance, in the shadows.
“The penumbra has the property of not allowing us to perceive where the darkness ends and where the light begins. Its somber circular presence does not allow to pinpoint exactly the beginning of one and the end of the other. Not without a certain risk - which, led by the hand of the temptation of his unique beauty, may well seem divine, like almost all risks - it is possible to read in the dark. Saving the enchantment from the risk in question is the fact of being able to perceive a certain magic in the blurred characters that, suddenly, come to life and that allow surprising, for the daring gaze, and behind the dead letter, nothing less than the Spirit: the Logos re-gaining immanent reality, exercising the purity of the fire that is his being and that, at the same time, is not. The philosophy itself, that is to say, the one that involves an emphatic sense, undoubtedly lives between lights and shadows for the sake of ideas. Only one who has penetrated the thickest darkness can conquer the light of truth: “in the circle the beginning and the end coincide”, observes, in the gloom, the dark Ephesus (Heraclitus).”
For his part, Darío Sztajnszrajber expressed that currently “the real-apparent dichotomy is an archaic category, it makes no sense in the digital age” and that “technology does not destroy or improve human beings, it transforms them”. , problematized the concepts of truth and lies in today's society”. “Post-truth has to do with lying, with lying to oneself. The opposite of truth is not lies, it is fiction, appearance,” he said. In relation to what we conceive as reality, he assured that it is a social construction. “The most interesting thing is that the spectacle of the spectacle convinces. Everyone knows it isn't, but it doesn't seem to matter.
J. A. López, contemporary spanish philosopher, maintains that “perhaps this absent life that we lead, where the virtual gains ground over reality, is not so bad, deep down. We lose one dimension, yes, but we gain another. Perhaps we are not very present in the place where we are, but the photos and the comments that we post about it build another that resembles it. Isn't that, for better or worse, what we've always done? We create our own imaginary world - built with our perceptions, our impressions, our expectations... - and we develop in it as if it were real. In that game of “as if…” resides the meaning, which is complete in itself, and is closer to us than the always fragmentary reality”.
The search for a way to return to an objective reality, independent of the observer, is an effort that even scientists keep awake.
Thus S. Hawkins says: "Philosophers, from Plato to now, have argued over the centuries about the nature of reality. Classical science is based on the belief that there is a real external world whose properties are defined and independent of the perceiving observer. According to classical science, certain objects exist and have physical properties, such as velocity and mass, with well-defined values. In that view, our theories are attempts to describe such objects and their properties, and our measurements and perceptions correspond to them. Both the observer and the observed are parts of a world that has an objective existence, and any distinction between the two is of no significant importance."…however “Different theories can describe the same phenomenon through frameworks different conceptual concepts”… and “David Hume (1711-1776) wrote that although we have no rational warrant for believing in an objective reality, we do not you have no choice but to act as if said reality were true.” That is why he proposes “There is no image —or theory— independent of the concept of reality. Thus, we will adopt a perspective that we will call model-dependent realism: the idea that a physical theory or a picture of the world is a model (usually of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that relate the elements of the model to the observations. This provides a framework in which to interpret modern science.”
About this we can say: “We have always lived in a parallel world: that of our fantasies, our fears and our hopes. Now we have made it faster and bigger. If that ends up dragging our life, and turning it into "liquid", as Zygmunt Bauman reflects, perhaps it is because we do not want to be in it, because we do not dare to stay and prefer to run and run, ... Life was already an illusion, sometimes happy and others terrible.”
“The denial of the truth leads us towards a life empty of facts. Which also denies knowledge, where there is no truth, there is no knowledge. To later sink into ignorance of a reality, which ends up denying the facts. While the present is diluted between desires and illusions, which feed a life of collective unconsciousness. This is one of the realities where the social masses develop. Domesticated and chained to an existence of darkness, which runs through the corridors of the labyrinths of shared ignorance. The truth will always be denied by the unconscious crowds, because the truth destroys their useless illusions and unfulfilled desires.”
We are here faced with the loss of meaning of the error category.
There can no longer be truth, there is no possibility of confronting it with reality, because reality is illusion.
Everything is mere illusion, desire, darkness, which hides the truth from us. Affirming something is taken as an attempt to install a lie, pass it off as truth, without understanding that to lie it is necessary to know the truth. For lying is a moral concept. On the other hand, from a gnoseological perspective, error and misunderstanding are the opposite of truth.
And the possibility of the 'conspiracy theory' comes to us. "The truth does not matter, but who can install it."
No comments:
Post a Comment