The Subjective Quest for Truth: Exploring Existentialism and Philosophy
Søren Kierkegaard, the father of existentialism, posited that existence precedes essence: we are born first and then determine our essence. Kierkegaard believed that truth is subjective, not an objective subject matter that can be universally seen. He emphasized that the subjective problem concerns subjectivity itself.
Like many, His goal in life was to find purpose, but his method differed significantly. He argued that truth can only be found eternally, rejecting the idea of finding truth through a crowd or universally accepted means. He questioned the value of knowledge without human existence, suggesting that seeking truth universally leads to irresponsibility in actions and words. According to Kierkegaard, this universal quest causes individuals to lose their personal understanding, as they accept things as true only because others do.
Kierkegaard believed that a particular existence is more important than the universal essence of systematic philosophy. He concentrated on the individual, rejecting Hegel’s abstract speculative philosophy. He argued that advancements in knowledge have led people to forget the real meaning of existence.
Freedom, he claimed, is dangerous because people lack an understanding of their purpose, do what they are told, and accept truths simply because others do. Kierkegaard stated that the essence of existence is passion, and a passionate life is not merely one of pleasure and happiness but an ethical-religious life. Such a life, he argued, requires decisive commitment, providing people with responsibility and preventing life from being hollow and superficial.
In contrast, Plato, an idealist and realist, believed that truth is objective and to be known through justified propositions. Knowledge, for Plato, must be about real things that exist in the world, perceived through rationality rather than just the senses. He argued that the world is a mere reflection of a higher truth and that ideas are more real than tangible objects. True knowledge, according to Plato, can only be achieved through persistent philosophical reasoning and logic.
Karl Marx, a materialist, emphasized that reality is independent of individual thoughts and is made up of matter. He argued that truth is objective and that the universe is lawful and rationally explicable. Marx acknowledged the significance of thoughts and ideas, stating that they are shaped by the conditions and environment in which we live. His dialectical materialism posits that human rationality and history are bound up with matter in motion, embracing objective existence.
Bertrand Russell, in his theory of truth and falsehood, proposed three conditions: truth must allow for falsehood to differentiate what is true and what is not; truth must be about beliefs and not free-floating; and truth must relate to the world, not just exist in our heads. Russell rejected coherentism, which posits that truth depends on the coherence of beliefs among themselves, and instead believed in objective truth.
William James, a pragmatist, analyzed truth and knowledge by proposing that pragmatism can solve key philosophical dilemmas. He categorized people into two types: tender-minded idealists who believe in abstract objects and tough-minded materialists who believe in tangible things. James argued that truth is verifiable when thoughts and statements correspond with actual things. Pragmatic Marxism asserts that the meaning of concepts is the sensory effect of their objects.
From what I have understood, there is no definitive answer to the search for truth. While many claim to have found the answer, no one truly knows everything. Our ego often leads us to believe that our experiences are unique and that we have faced the worst, making us go around proclaiming our truths, which eventually become motivational quotes. But who decides whether these quotes are motivational or just nonsense?
Searching for truth can be scary, especially if the foundation we were raised on was shaky. We were told to be nice without being taught how or when to stop. We were told that life gets easier, but not that it will always be hard because if it weren’t, we would be in paradise. Hiding obvious truths makes them seem scary, but they are just truths.
Rebuilding our foundation is possible but not easy. Even when we try to build anew, our old roots remain imprinted on us. We are conditioned to run away from truths, and when we try to find our way back, we encounter doubt and guilt. Truths aren’t scary; they are just truths.
“It was hard when I wanted to know the things that I wanted to know. It’s even harder now to know the things that I wanted to know. Sometimes it’s better not knowing some things.”
Sometimes, we run away too far, and the way back home seems blurry. But perhaps it was just a cloud waiting to rain and clear things up. Instead of waiting, we moved further away, encountering guilt and doubt again.
“Half of my problems exist because I don’t have teleportation powers.”
