Man’s Mind is made for Truth
No matter how hard man tries, he cannot deny objective truth.
Truth, which is the alignment of our intelligence with what is outside of us, and points to the fact that reality (that which is external to the person, exists independently of him, and is the same for everyone) is the foundation of knowledge. It presents itself to man as certain or absolute in relation to its existence, and in trying to deny it, man contradicts himself because he eventually ends up admitting exactly what he wants to deny. For example, when someone says “there is no truth,” he presupposes precisely the opposite, that what he said (“there is no truth”) is true, i.e., corresponds to the fact that there is a “common ground” (reality) between him and the other, independent of the two, and for that reason the other understands him, underlying that what he says is objective and not based on the subject. Analyzing this more in depth will give us a better understanding of this principle.
When a person affirms something, he presupposes that what is actually said is that way because reality is this “common” or “third” element which is independent, autonomous, and shared between the speaker and the listener. In saying something to someone, it is assumed that the other person understands what is being said, precisely because the thing affirmed does not depend on the person that says it. For example, if someone says, “this tree is green” he presupposes that the other person already understands what is “a tree” and what is “green”, and that the ens (being) in front of him exists in that way. This is because these elements are independent of individual perception. If you pretend that everything is subjective and that knowledge depends on the perception or opinion of each person, there would be no hope that other people would understand you. “Green” for one could be “purple” or “light green” to another, and they would never come to understand each other.
There would then be no certainty about anything if everything depended on how you look at something and not how things are in themselves. A separation between the subject and everything that surrounded him would be the byproduct of such a theory. He would be like an island with no possibility of “touching” or “connecting” with others because personal or private perception would manipulate everything. Without reference to something real, something objective or common, all human interaction would be insecure, empty, and meaningless, given that there would be no way of knowing if what someone says is real or true.
Thus, when one says that “truth does not exist”, it is as absurd as saying “red is not a color”. But even if someone said this, it is assumed that the other person knows what “color” is and what “red” is, otherwise, the words would have no meaning for the other person. It would be like saying “ggxxdd is not a bbxxddd” because if “red” were not a “color” both words would remain empty of any essence and no one would understand. Conversely, if I did say something like that, I would presuppose that the other person understands, by the idea behind the word “red”, that it is a color, and so I end up presuming what I was trying to deny: that “red is a color”.
To say that there is no truth is as absurd as saying “I do not exist”. This is because to say “I” presupposes a subject that exists, otherwise it would not even be possible to be aware of an “I” if it did not exist previously, given that awareness has to exist in a subject (which must also exist) if it is to exist at all. This is similar to saying that “words do not exist” when they are precisely what I’m using to express this. So, to think you cannot know reality as it is in itself, but only perceptions, but at the same time pretend that there is something objective or common to be able to understand the other, will always be contradictory, which indicates in itself that there is no way to reduce everything to the subjective.
To say that I cannot know things as they really are and that everything is just subjective perception, presupposes, in some way, that there is a certain knowledge of reality. This “certain knowledge” is precisely to recognize that reality exists and has a particular way of existing — that of being “unknown and manipulated by the subject” — that is, something one would presuppose as objective. Therefore, prior to this knowledge that reality is supposedly “subjective”, it is necessary to have contact with that which is outside of me, with the reality around me, through an experience which provides such presupposed particular knowledge, otherwise, I wouldn’t even know if it were possible to know or not, or if what I knew was mere perception or not.
Ultimately, to assert that “we are ignorant of the way things are in themselves”, I should have previously presupposed that there are really “things in themselves”, and that they are “independent of me”, regardless of my perception. This indicates that I did indeed obtain concrete and objective knowledge of reality which ultimately denies my ignorance of it. If we decide to deny all this, we would have to conclude that everything is just mental concoction and mere illusion. If there is no coherent connection with reality, then the only things I would know are just mere “perceptions”, as some like to call them, which are actually just self-pronounced premises that the subject declares as “valid” but have absolutely no basis in anything.
One of the many conclusions that arise from this is that everything I would categorize as “existing” would only be “that which I can think about” (including my own existence). In this case, former categories like “error” or “incorrect” would no longer be valid, because the subject’s mind would mediate all things and eliminate anything that would try and contradict it. If we further clarify this point we see that “what the subject knows” would be “what the subject creates” and “perception” is really just “creation”. In this scenario, even though the subject might pretend, out of some fabricated psychological dependencies, to act as if there were others with whom to relate and even to argue with, having already presupposed that the subject’s mind is “creator, judge, and jury” of all things, he would ultimately be alone. We could then ask, pausing from these rather extreme conclusions, whether it is better to be wrong, or to be completely alone. Is it worth being king of this “universe of illusion” or to be part of something real and accept the sometimes harsh consequences that this entails?
Yet, if we continue to the extreme, we still find other inconsistencies within this system. If the subject were really able to remain independent of reality, he appears to be a rather masochistic being, given that he seems to enjoy perceiving (creating) suffering on a constant basis. If the subject were really “in charge” and could dictate what was “true” and “false”, why continue inventing something that he seems to aggressively reject? If the subject responds by saying that “it is necessary for the system” as if it were part of some transcendental “yin and yang” he would end up affirming once again that which he previously tried to deny. If this “perception” were dependent upon a “system”, this system would then be somehow independent of the subject, and thus not all things would be dependent on his mind or what he desires to perceive. In other words, even the idealist, without realizing it, would fall into contradiction and deny his all-encompassing mental universe.
Either reality is first, or I must deny it completely. There is no way to have it in second place. If my mind is first, then it is also second, third, and every other possible place, because if my mind is first, then there is nothing else. Only if reality is first can we have “truth” and “other” and certainty of anything, and without it, we are but the king of nothing.
