Blog

Original Quora question: The assertion that “absolute truth cannot be known” seems to be self-defeating, as one who holds that cannot at the same time believe it to be absolutely true. Can you help me understand how this is not a self-defeating argument?

I am grateful for this question.

---

Absolute Truth

I have asked myself these questions: What do I know, and how do/can I know it?

It seems to me that there is an absolutely true reality (because I share experiences with humanity, but I can’t know that there is an absolute reality for sure—maybe, see below), but how do I know that I perceive it accurately when other individuals often perceive reality slightly differently. Also, I believe that my sight, hearing, taste, and touch are imperfect. If they are insufficient, my perception of reality will be flawed. So how do I determine absolute reality? Harder still, how can/will I prove it absolutely to others?

I suppose, at birth, I was born with some survival instincts. Therefore I might have innately (from an all-knowing Creator) known some absolute “truths.” But how would I know that these truths are THE truth? The absolute truth? The correct and best answer? I can’t say.

• As a result, I momentarily hypothesize,
  • (A) Knowledge of absolute truths not possible [1][2];
  • (B) Absolute knowledge of (A) is also not possible.
    • MAYBE. See below for clarification on (B).

No paradox in (A) and (B), but seemingly (and good for you) self-defeating.

This particular problem has been around for a long time (Skepticism). The philosophical area of epistemology is focused on its resolution. But I find epistemology unnecessary now because I believe that a detailed definition for REASON resolves the self-defeating form of (A) with (B):

REASON

So, ignoring for the moment (A) and (B) above, how would an individual determine the truth of anything, even if it was only subjective truth? Humans accomplish it. Isn’t this process called “reason”? If humanity agreed to the details of this process, might we also have the tool to obtain objective truth? Wouldn’t a shared reality, on the path to absolute reality, emerge for any group that engaged in it?

Moreover, using their senses, humans observe. The human mind builds mental models to explain the observed. This is an innate skill. Isn’t the result (the mind’s mental models) also the mind’s subjective truth? Later, affirming sensory data alters or reinforces the models, and conflicting data, accompanied sometimes by an emotional reaction, dismantles or invalidates them. This skill is an evolutionary strength of the mind. These acquired models make possible a prediction because they are true to the mind. Responsive behaviors are, of course, likewise developed.

It seems axiomatic [3] then to state that:

• A hypothesis should explain the observed for it to be an individual’s subjective truth—this being how the mind naturally works.
  • This is a NECESSARY CONDITION [3] for subjective truth

Yet, this is only subjective truth. There is sufficient evidence that an individual’s subjective truth is not objective or absolute truth. Specifically, humans can be (frequently) wrong. Moreover, the mental models of humans vary. In other words, there can be many hypotheses (subjective truths).

So, I believe it is also axiomatic [3] to also state:

• There can be only one TRUE hypothesis for it to be objectively true. I.e., testing and more data must prove all but one hypothesis true (The scientific method, generally).
  • This is the SUFFICIENT CONDITION [3] for objective truth;
  • The parent bullet is also, in part, the process of reason (disproving hypotheses).

However, the immediately preceding statements are for objective truth only, and yet, any number of known and UNKNOWN hypotheses are possible. The UNKNOWN are essential for finding truth. Without it, the process collapses in on itself because, at some point, always, no known conflicting hypotheses will exist, and subjective truth will become objective and then absolute truth. Moreover, a person might believe they begin with absolute truth. UNKNOWN is the essential doorstop for an open mind. UNKOWN also makes it impossible for absolute truth to be known.

So, for reason, it is axiomatic [3] to further state:

• For absolute truth, there can be only one TRUE hypothesis where an UNKNOWN number of hypotheses are possible. That is, all UNKNOWN hypotheses must be disproven for absolute truth.
  • This is the SUFFICIENT CONDITION [3] for ABSOLUTE TRUTH;
  • This is reason in remaining part: finding and disproving all unknown hypotheses.

---

But, unknown is never known, therefore …

• Absolute truth is unknowable by the definition of Reason and the requirements of the Necessary and Sufficient Condition (philosophy’s first principles);
• The proposition (A) above, is thereby justified, preserved, and TRUE.
• Thus, for there to be Reason, it is axiomatic that absolute truth is unknowable. In other words, (B) above is unjustified and consequently wrong. In fact, one can state as absolutely true that it IS impossible to claim (or know) absolute truth:
• (B), because its opposite is axiomatic (taken as true), proposition (B) cannot render (A) meaningless by directly contradicting it (i.e., self defeating).

It is the definition of reason that makes absolute truth unknowable and axiomatic. Therefore, a declaration to that effect, statement (B), is not required.