The world in which we live in can be described, but never fully presented by our description. There are different ways we can go about describing reality, and each are important and should be examined within its proper context.[1] Reality is complex, and each way we try to describe it allows for us to grasp an aspect of it but not its whole. Certainly we can and try to present it in its entirety, sometimes with a fair amount of success, sometimes not. Nonetheless, we should never confuse our description of reality for reality itself; we should realize that at best it only points to what is real using elements of reality to represent its whole. Each way we try to describe what is real is itself a construct which we have created. Each description is limited; some will present aspects of the real better than others, but if we try to focus on any one system, we will find out how unreal it actually is and how it leads to a dead end.
This should not lead us to despair. In and through each system, one can and does discuss the truth. Different systematic presentations of the truth can and do complement each other, even if those systems, taken as literally as possible, contradict each other. To get at truth, we need to look at it from many angles. We need to let it reveal itself, while realizing what is revealed is only a portion of the whole. Looking at it from different angles will provide different portions of the truth; some angles will share common elements, others might not. What we see from these angels can contradict what we see from other angles without actually being false.[2]
To really grasp the truth, we need to find a way which allows us to grasp truth from all possible angles. We need to find a way to move beyond the limitations of any one viewpoint without turning into relativists, or without creating a new, ultra-synthetic system which merges (and therefore destroys) complementary systems into one system (and thereby creating a new prison for reality). That is to say, truth is not found merely by merging different systematic approaches together into one over-arching synthetic form of truth with its own propositions. Rather, it is experienced, not realized by propositions. Propositions help provide us a way to engage, understand and experience truth, but they are not themselves the truth. Some propositions can and must be shown to be untruth, because what they point to is not found in reality.[3] But before we can say that a proposition is false, we must be careful and make sure that we understand the proposition being discussed properly. Often what seems to be in error is not, such as in the case of equivocation, where people are talking past each other and not really talking about the same thing. This is often the case, we find, when one engages comparative studies of religion: it is easy to assume two words, because they fulfill similar functions, represent the same content, when they do not.[4]
From this we should begin to understand the limitations of systematic approaches to truth: any given system presents a way of understanding the truth, but is not the truth itself. What we have is, at best, an aspect of truth being used to cover the truth itself. Usually the original truth-seeker creates their presentation of the truth with the realization that behind what they have said is a greater truth which has been hidden from their view. If a system is understood properly, people will understand it is a useful tool, because truth is presented in a meaningful form that helps others grasp something about the nature of reality itself. Each worldview is its own cover, its own construct. Each worldview must be seen as a kind of conventional truth. Some are better, more comprehensive than others, but none are conclusive in themselves. If these constructs truly come out of truth, and not falsehood, then they must be said to be true, but only conventionally so. Each convention must let itself be taken for what it is and not for what it is not. Under no circumstance can it be reified, for when that happens, it becomes falsehood and an intellectual trap. This is to say that conventional truths are empty in and of themselves, and the only value they provide is the access they provide to the absolute, to absolute truth.
Not all systems which claim to be conventional representations of reality are valid, just like not all maps actually represent what they are claimed to represent. On the other hand, it would not be useful for any systematic approach to reality to present the whole of reality, just like it would not be useful for a map to be identical to that which is being mapped out. [5] Thus, although conventional truths are relative in value, because they are conventional, they help lead us to absolute truth. Just as it is possible that we will find errors in an otherwise valid map, so it is possible that within a conventional presentation of truth, we will find the conventions are generally sound but flawed in various ways. Thus, even if find mistakes within a systematic presentation of truth, this does not mean we should reject all that is found within a given worldview: there is still much it can teach us, as long as we remain cautious. On the other hand, this means that an otherwise false convention could contain some element of truth which it uses to justify itself, and so it is not entirely false. Thus, conventional truths, different worldviews, can and do help point to the absolute. If mistakes are found in these conventional truths, we must not automatically dismiss these conventions as lie, because mistakes will be found in all conventions. On the other hand, if a convention is shown to be erroneous, this does not mean all that is found within it will be false; for it is only through truth which is misunderstood that falsehood can present itself as truth.
Thus, the key for the truth seeker, looking through and examining different presentations of truth, is to understand that a systematic approach to reality is an imperfect construct which represents a mediated explanation of the absolute, but it is not the absolute itself. It must be debated, even deconstructed, so that reification will not happen. Truth is not propositional, even if propositions are the means by which we discuss the truth. The trick is to be able to understand what the propositions are explaining, and then to be able to restate that meaning in other formats when needed.[6]If a truth comes out the development of the propositions within one’s systematic understanding of truth, its nature as a derivative truth must not be forgotten. It can still present something which is true, but it is also more likely that elements of error, of untruth, will get mixed in with it. Thus, it could still present an aspect of the absolute, but it might not be the best such representation; what is discovered in one system might be better represented through that system than others. It is also possible that what it points to is a cruder presentation of truth than what one finds in other systems; when this is the case, it shows us a weakness within a given convention. It is a point at which that convention is beginning to falter and fail to present the fullness of truth.[7]
Because of these facts, it becomes quite apparent that if one wants to engage truth, one must be able to appreciate and dialogue with and in many conventional forms of truth. We must be able to engage many worldviews, even if they seem mutually contradictory, because each worldview is a different angle by which the truth is to be ascertained. And in each worldview, then, we can find something more about truth. And the more of the truth we experience as a result, the more we will be capable of addressing multiple worldviews without being caught up by their mistakes. We can engage the systems without being limited by them. We can also take what we know of the truth and use each worldview to reach it. The Buddhist idea of “skillful means” presents what this entails.[8] One is only skillful in bringing others to the truth in so far as they have ascertained the truth for themselves.
Different people will comprehend the truth by different categories of thought, and some of those conventions will be quite restrictive. But the further one explores the truth, the more they will give up all conventions and appreciate truth apophatically. Then, and only then, will one truly be skillful, because it is only through a transcendent experience beyond conventions that one can create immanent, positive presentations of truth. It is through this apophatic base that one presenting truth will be able to present a truth beyond themselves. Analogy, as a category of truth, works because it is founded upon the notion of difference, and with it, the idea that truth transcends what is implied by the analogy.
Systematic approaches to truth need not be abandoned; rather, they should be understood for what they are, that is, tools by which the truth can be understood. The one skilled in truth will point out that what they say is limited, and must be understood with caution. Truth transcends words, and what is ever said cannot be literal truth. Understanding this, one can engage various worldviews without being trapped by them. Instead, one will be enriched by them, for they will find viewpoints which we, as humans, need. And in this way, Christians must look at non-Christian faiths with humility; for we must appreciate the fact that non-Christians and their traditions are capable of teaching us something about truth (as St Thomas Aquinas proved with his adaptation of Aristotle).
Footnotes
[1] Westerners are used to dividing their worldview into matters of empirical science, ontology or philosophy, and theology or religious reflection. The Western tradition as a whole tries to find ways to merge the three traditions together; yet even the sum total will represent only an insignificant portion of what is real; what is not known about reality will transcend what is known.
[2] Indian philosophy presents this fact with the notion of blind men touching different parts of an elephant and describing what it is they have touched. One touched the trunk and explained the elephant as the trunk. Another touched the tail, and presented the elephant as the tail. While there was a similarity between these two presentations this similarity must not be used to confuse and synthesize the two. If one did, one will never understand what an elephant truly is.
[3] Once we have established what the term rabbit represents (and it is what the term normally means in the English language), the proposition: rabbits have horns would, because it points to an unreality, be false. But the proposition that rabbits jump to move around would be true, even if it is not the fullness of truth.
[4] More ink has been spilt in debates between Buddhists and Christians than should have been over the question of the soul because some people mistook atman to be pointing to the same reality as soul, when it was not.
[5]Map making is an important tool, though the only way a map can perfectly present what is being mapped out is if it is identical with what is being mapped out. There would be no use for such a map, even if it gets the details exactly right; the map would have ceased to provide a way to understand what is being mapped out becaus it would have become its double. The only way to make a map of a city which is not incomplete is to have a map the size of that city itself. But if this happened, no one would want to use such a map to navigate the city in question, because they would have to navigate through the “map” first.
[6]If someone is a Thomist, can they re-present their theological ideas within an Augustinian, a Bonaventurian, a Scotist, a Sophiological, et. al. convention? If not, something is wrong with their understanding.
[7]When we take a picture with a digital camera, we find different cameras are capable of better resolution than others. When we view the picture on a computer, and zoom in, eventually the picture will pixelate. The zoom function is equivalent to the method by which we find derivative truths in a given convention. Some pictures, some conventions, can zoom in more than others. But eventually, the picture and the convention will give and become meaningless nonsense.
[8] Upaya, skillful means, is the idea that one who has an experience of the truth can direct people to reach that goal, no matter what context or worldview they have. The task is to take people where they are and show, from their own context, how to reach the proper end. Different approaches to the truth can lead to it, but only with proper guidance.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In