Jesus does not sit on his hands

People who claim to know the truth or who believe that they’re on the right, truthful path with Jesus, Allah, or the Buddha, seem, to me, to be complacent. They behave as though there’s nothing more to learn. They read the bible or the Koran, and they see the same message over and over again. They become stagnant in their knowledge and actions. They become mired with biases and prejudices.

But are Jesus, Lao Tzu, Confucius, Socrates, to name a few of these spiritual thinkers, as complacent as their so called followers? Has knowing THE truth made them as dumb as their followers? Has knowing THE truth made them as biased and prejudiced, and stupid?

When you are on the right path, when you feel that this is what you have to do, destined to do – be it in science, art, literature, philosophy, architecture, social work, medicine, etc – you could feel yourself expanding in knowledge. You want to know more although you have, being driven by passion for what you do, feel that you have learned a lot. It is never enough. There is always something, you say to yourself, that waits to be discovered. It’s a never ending process of knowing. That is why you are always searching. You never stop searching, and being ON the right path is what motivates you to move on. You are never complacent; yet you are most happy.

If you want to emulate these people of passion, then you should not idolize them.

How to face the Uncertainty: Be Ethical

I used to live out the philosophy of Rene Descartes. As a Cartesian follower, I always wanted to be sure that I had the correct way of thinking about things that are fundamentally important. It was not enough that I had the right statements about the status of things. It was important that the way I think, the way I thought about them must also be true.

What appears as the truth could be false. What if my premises and assumptions about the world are false? What if I was not aware of their falsehoods and sincerely believed in them? I would then be made to believe that a conclusion logically arrived at from these false premisses is true, when in fact it is horribly false.

In other words, I wanted to know "How do I know that what I know is true?" and "How would I know that how I know is the truth?

Like myself, Rene Descartes was afraid of uncertainty.

Being uncertain about anything is a scary thing. Being uncertain about your relationship with the significant other can drive you crazy. And, being uncertain about your future can be disastrous and make you want to become a pleasure seeker. But, being afraid to face the Uncertainty is the scariest of them all.

You could do the opposite of what Descartes yearned for, and be careless and unmindful. Either way, it's the same attitude towards the Uncertainty: it hides itself from facing the Uncertainty. Uncertainty is here to stay. That is for sure. The reality is that no one can know for certain of anything, even if he plans to be sure.

Yet, I think there is a way to deal with the Uncertainty. However it is not by way of epistemology or the study of knowledge. I think the proper way of dealing with, facing, and embracing the Uncertainty of life is to develop a moral character.

Be morally truthful to yourself and to the other. Live as though there's no tomorrow. To live - and I don't mean just to survive - is to know what to die for. If you can stand firmly on moral grounds, then I think, you can face the inevitability of the Uncertainty any time. It is called death.

A 10 Minute Drive: From Phenomenology To Situational Truth

I picked up Christopher from work. As soon as he got into the car, he asked me - as he always does - a philosophical question.

“Dad, what is the way to Truth?”

“What do you mean?” I asked

“Well, I’m not asking for the nature of truth,” Chris explained, “How does one deal with truth? I mean, how does one stay on the right path?”

“You’re asking for a certain way of finding the truth? An approach? A method?” I asked.

“Yeah, you can say that. Dad, you mentioned phenomenology the other day. What is it?”

It takes about 10 minutes from his work place to arrive home. How do you explain phenomenology in 10 minutes or less?

“Well, phenomenology is a method of understanding the essence of things, that is, the meaning for being what they are. Everyone has biases and prejudices, whether they are derived from studies or they are irrational. Some of these judgments are not false. Some are scientifically verified. But, these scientifically verified statements were formed from a standpoint that may have nothing to do with the essence of a thing.

By exploring an essence of a thing, I am referring to our immediate experience of an essence of a thing. By immediate experience, I mean, an unadulterated experience prior to the formation of biases and prejudices. To focus your attention on the immediate experience, you need to put aside or ‘bracket’ out these biases and prejudices. Bracketing them out does not mean that they are false or that you are skeptical of them. On the contrary, bracketing is a way of suspending your judgment as you go on your own finding the essence.. Eventually, some of them are taken into consideration after realizing that some of them may after all be part of the essence of a thing.”

“But, can we really let go of our biases and prejudices? Asked Chris, “We can try, but there’s no guarantee that we can put aside all of our biases and prejudices.”

“I don’t think that you or anyone can completely put aside your biases and prejudices, especially the ones that you’re blind to, despite your efforts. It’s the deeply rooted biases and prejudices that escape scrutiny. Now, is phenomenology a total failure? It depends on how you look at it. Insofar searching for the essence, I think phenomenology failed. However, I like its spirit, its intention. Phenomenology assumes that a lone individual can find the truth. That’s a problem. However, if you desire to be truthful, then you’ll realize that you can’t do it on your own. No one individual can.”

“What do you mean? Are you saying that an individual, a specially gifted individual like Gandhi, Mandela, Jesus, or Confucius, in his moment of silence, contemplation, of seclusion, didn’t discover the truth?” Chris was puzzled.

[It contradicts the common notion of a lone wise person, who leaves the pack and stays secluded for a number of years in a place known only to him, only to resurface and reconnect with the multitude who are in need of a moral compass.]

“Chris,  I have no doubt that they have a great capacity for knowing the truth, more than most people. But do you think any of them has the monopoly of Truth? I am pretty sure that one knows something that the other has overlooked. Maybe, it’s my bias, but I consider them human beings. But, if you consider one of them to be a god, then I will just have to say, Amen. I cannot pretend to know what only the gods know.something. Socrates was aware of his ignorance.. He said: ‘I know nothing beyond this earth and below it. I only know what is human.’ Or, something to that effect. So, neither you nor II can talk or should want to pretend to know about things that only non human beings know. For instance, ‘is there life after life? It sure is tempting to say that it exists. In all honesty, I do not know about it the way I know my experiences and the steering wheel in front of me, and the driver’s seat I am sitting on, and you beside me, and home, and we’re just about 5 minutes away.”

So, let us talk about human beings, and limit ourselves to what they can know. I am pretty certain that every individual has his own set of biases and prejudices. All he can do is minimize their influence or at least be aware of them; Whatever he claims to be truthful will always be influenced by his history, background, education, to name a few. In other words, he can arrive at truthful statements that others can learn from him; but there will be others who, unlike him, have their own and equally valid interpretation. Each interpretation, it seems to me, has a blind spot that others can fill. Others, needless to say, have their own blind spots. Nothing wrong with blind spots. It is part of being human, limited to time and space.

I think it’s a humble way of looking at truth - that is, truthful statements - and of recognizing that there are various interpretations of a given situation. It’s a humble way because when you realize that no matter how honest and earnest you are in finding the truth (truthful statement) that you believe not only applies to you but to the others well, you will also learn the habit of being critical and open to other ideas.

“Well, we’re home.”

Chris got off first and head for the door. He has work the following day, and I am expected to pick him up. I don’t have to be fortune teller to know that, when I pick him up, he’s going to greet me with another question.

The Living Truth

Truth is very difficult to define. So let us take up some examples of truth, or of how we use the word, 'truth.'

Mathematical truth. "Two plus two" is equal to "four." We say this is true. The opposite is false when we say "two plus two" is equal to "three."

Empirical truth. If I say "I have an elephant in my shirt pocket', then it is false because it is an empirical fact that there is no elephant in my shirt pocket. It is a fact and true when I say that there is a pen in my shirt pocket. This is an empirical truth because anyone, not just me, can see that there is a pen in my shirt pocket.

Biblical truth. If I say that "Christ is merely a man, not a son of God," then it is false because Christians believe that Christ is the Son of God, born without sin. While mathematical truth is based on logic, and empirical truth is based on the senses, biblical truth is based on one's faith. We can say that different truths have different bases.

There is another meaning of truth that is not necessarily based on the aforementioned. This truth is derived from, and created by, one's life. It is a truth that enables one to realize more of his or her nature and destiny. However, this truth is extremely difficult - and, at times, dangerous -to discover because it requires that one has to first accept one's ignorance, that is, that one does not know everything. Not everyone is willing to accept one's weaknesses. Everyone likes to know his or her strengths. Everyone wants to show off his or her strengths. Unfortunately, many cringe at the sight of their weaknesses. Knowing their weaknesses are actually a big step to knowing their selves. It takes moral courage to face them.

Many of us are afraid to know the 'dark side' of one's personality because we have something to hide from the others especially from ourselves. Through the years, we have built up an image of ourselves that we show to other people and to ourselves. This is a false image, a pretension. And it takes so much time and energy to keep up that façade that we actually become weary and stressed out. Furthermore, we become defensive when we sense that people can see through the façade (mask). The more masks we wear, the more we don't know ourselves; and the more we become ignorant and arrogant.

Why do we wear masks? Why do we lie to ourselves and to the others? We lie because we depend on the approval of the others. We want people to like us. There is nothing wrong with that. But, people might like us for the wrong reasons. And worst of all, we might love ourselves for the wrong reasons.

How do we free ourselves from all of these wrong reasons? How can we allow others to accept us for who we are? The answer is to first accept who we are. So, when we have humbly accepted our strengths and embraced our weaknesses, people will (eventually) accept and respect us for who we are. As a result, the truth about who we are sets us free to be who we are and can be.

Deadly Oneness of Truth

Should we still be insisting on - what more, be believing in - the absoluteness of truth? Could we ever arrive at one conclusion so everyone could finally live in peace with one another? Or, were we all destined to wage war for all eternity until the there is only one man left standing? Is such a notion of truth dangerous?

'Deadly' Truth 

Truth, it was said, is One and Absolute, and independent of the knower. Truth, of this kind, depends not on what the knower thinks it is or should be. The knower, to know the truth, must align himself to it. He must be ready to receive its light. Truth, it was conceived, is timeless and quite objective. However, only a few are privileged to know such a truth. And they announced it to the 'underprivileged' which make up the great majority of the human population.

The 'underprivileged many' was attracted to such a notion of truth. So intense were their emotions that they believed to have seen the Truth. Truth, they argue, is on their side. And, they would insist on it, even wage a holy war if need be. Indeed they have waged holy wars amongst nations, communities and in their neighbourhood. Such is the social and political consequence of believing in the notion that Truth is the One and the Absolute.

It’s not a matter of (a) fact

Truth, many believe, is a fact to which they add: it is an undeniable fact. But, that's confusing the two terms.

Is it a fact that a big, unusual looking bone an evidence of evolution? Sure, if you’re a paleontologist or a believer in the theory of evolution. To someone who does not share your belief, the big unusual looking bone is not a proof of evolution. If two or more persons see the same thing in two different ways, then there is a distinction between a fact and a truth. Let me explain.

Truth is not equated to a fact, and vice versa. Something becomes a fact when it fits into the story you believe in. Something is true because it intensifies your involvement in the story, your story. It is the story that causes a fact to rise up and present itself as true. This is the power of the story for it gives birth to the notion of truth. There is no truth outside a story. Without a story we would not be able to make sense of the world and the things that happen in it. We could not utter the word 'truth'. (A world, interestingly, is created through and by a story.)

Tell Stories, not the truth

The conflict between individuals and groups then is not a quarrel about whether truth is absolute or relative. The conflict, which oftentimes ends in violence, is the failure on our part to realize that what’s being told is a story. Can you say that a story is (the) truth?  After reading a book of fiction, and remarking that 'it is so true',  are you then not enlightened? Someone's story expresses your story, and deepens and widens the quality of your story, your life. And, it does without telling the truth. Stories try to make sense of it all in the midst of chaos.Without a story, life would be meaningless, bereft of hope. 

Just as there are many communities there are many stories. Stories are meant to be told and to be listened, to, and the chance to acquire deeper appreciation and understanding of the world and ourselves.

When was the last time you listened to a story?