RSS
True vs. "true"
and The truth is elusive
John Owen, Evenings with the Skeptics: Free Discussion on Free thinkers, Vol. II: Christian Skepticism (Longmans, Green & Co: 1881), pp.3-52.
This is a long but exceptionally eloquent and learned dialogue between a group of thoughtful friends in the late 19th century. Dr. Trevor poses the question "whether what is demonstrably true in
one subject or from one point of view can be false in another or from a different standpoint?" Their dialogue bookends Trevor's formal paper, where he argues that whatever may be the case in reality, at least within our own deliberations, "we cannot without the most gratuitous mental suicide allow the subjective co-existence of antagonistic
convictions both claiming to be true at the same time". Trevor begins by noting the severe limits of our knowledge. "The thinker rightly regards himself and his knowledge as a small islet in the immeasurable ocean of the unknown." He unsparingly traces a history of the ecclesiastic autocracy of theological dogma until reason got its foot in the door and began an insurrection, asserting itself against the "Roman" church as the singular arbiter of truth. Nonetheless, he argues, the phenomenon of competing considerations is not just a byproduct of religious authority, but rather an inescapable aspect of being human, coming at us from many angles: "the Known and the Unknown, individual man and collective humanity, Intellect and Emotion". Trevor therefore commends the thinker who has "double vision", the ability to see and integrate various sources of evidence, who is always reticent and reflective, even in conviction. Though it requires treading through some rather dense prose, the discussion of these "Christian skeptics" is a feast of language and thought. At times it captures the spirit of Afterall.net better than I ever could have in my own words. ~ Afterall
A Treatise on Human Understanding (Clarendon Press, 1896).
Nothing is more usual and more natural for those who
pretend to discover any thing new to the world in philosophy
and the sciences, than to insinuate the praises of their
own systems by decrying all those which have been advanced
before them. And indeed were they content with
lamenting that ignorance, which we still lie under in the
most important questions that can come before the tribunal
of human reason, there are few who have an acquaintance
with the sciences that would not readily agree with them. 'Tis easy for one of judgment and learning to perceive
the weak foundation even of those systems which have obtained
the greatest credit, and have carried their pretensions
highest to accurate and profound reasoning. Principles
taken upon trust, consequences lamely deduced from them,
want of coherence in the parts, and of evidence in the whole,
these are every where to be met with in the systems of the
most eminent philosophers, and seem to have drawn disgrace
upon philosophy itself.
The Great Divorce (Simon & Schuster: 1946), 44.
I can promise you none of these things. No atmosphere of inquiry, for I
will bring you to the land not of questions but of answers, and you
shall see the face of God. "Ah, but we must all interpret those
beautiful words in our own way! For me there is no such thing as a
final answer. The free wind of inquiry must always continue to blow
through the mind, must it not? Prove all things, to travel hopeful is
better than to arrive." If that were true, and known to be true, how
could anyone travel hopefully? There would be nothing to hope for. "But
you must feel yourself that there is something stifling about the idea
of finality? Stagnation, my dear boy, what is more soul-destroying than
stagnation?" You think that, because hitherto you have experienced
truth only with the abstract intellect. I will bring you where you can
taste it like honey and be embraced by it as by a bridegroom. Your
thirst shall be quenched.
