+/- II

(Positive or Negative, part 2)

In part 1, I attempted to demonstrate that most things (objects, actions, concepts) have some kind of objective character which is independent of how any one of us may feel about them. (I said most things. There are some things, I'm sure, which could best be characterized subjectively--based on our personal feelings, which of course vary from one individual to another. However, it is NOT my intention to discuss those things--whatever they are--at this time.)

I also tried to show how people tend to "label" (identify in some fashion) & "categorize" (sort) the experiences they have and the people & things they encounter--at the very least as to whether they like, dislike or are indifferent to someone/something. (This is not the same thing as "judging" someone in the sense of determining the final state of another's soul, something we reserve to God alone.) This process is very basic and necessary for memory and reason to function at all, not to mention communication.

We must first mentally identify and sort things in order to "file them away" in our short term (& eventually long term) memories in order to process the information that those things represent so we can make sense out of the world around us. And we have to "coordinate" this process (to a greater or lesser degree) with others in order to communicate with them. (If there is no commonality of understanding about certain basic images/words/experiences between Joe's mind and Sue's mind, Joe and Sue cannot communicate.)

The various disciplines within the fields of science, mathematics and language, for example, depend fundamentally on the objective character of things in the universe (and the universe as a whole). If there's nothing solid "out there" (and not just inside my head), then how can we study anything? If "reality" was truly up for grabs, awaiting each individual to define it for himself, nothing could be predicted (like the orbits of planets, local weather patterns or the result of a mathematical equation) and the universe would make no sense. The word truth itself--like everything else--would be meaningless.

(Now it should be admitted that some people do have some trouble making sense out of the world around them, but that's not the fault of the world around them, nor does Mr. X's failure to recognize its objective character take anything away from that character. In other words, reality is still objective even if crazy Mr. X says it isn't and keeps trying to redefine it to suit himself.)

Now we get down to the whole point of this long essay, which is the existence of objective truth. Here are a few examples of things that are objectively true:

2+2=4 (not 5).

Oak trees sprout from acorns, grow into strong trees of a predictable size, shape and structure (given enough sun, moisture and nutrients in the soil) and eventually die, fall over and decay (acorns do not sprout holly bushes or tulips).

There is insufficient breathable oxygen on the surface of the moon to sustain life (if you remove your helmet on the moon you will die very quickly).

Household current is useful for running refrigerators and hair dryers, but can be lethal if misused (don't drop a plug-in radio into bathwater or someone may die).

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

A large amount of arsenic is not fit for human consumption (if you eat it you could die a painful death).

It is always and everywhere wrong to intentionally take the life of an innocent human being (that's called murder).

Human embryos and fetuses are innocent (they've done nothing wrong) and they are human beings (they are not fish or dogs, even if superficial visual similarities may exist).

The sole function of the anus is the elimination of the solid waste of digestion (so introducing foreign objects into the rectum for the sake of a thrill, such as pencils, fingers, penises, knives or gerbils, can harm the body).

Sodomy is a very immuno-depressive behavior (those who engage in it regularly will get seriously sick).

Sin darkens the intellect and weakens the will (after a while, one who persists in grave sin begins to call what is evil good and what is good evil, and gradually becomes unable to control his own unruly passions).

Confession is good for the soul (people need to "unburden" themselves to another human being to achieve spiritual healing).


Now, anyone is of course free to deny the truth of any one or all of these statements if he so chooses. But he does so at his own peril, and he shouldn't blame anyone else for his own foolish behavior. A good friend would try to point out (warn) if someone he knew had problems recognizing or conforming to objective truth (reality) and was involved with embarassing, stupid, self-destructive or evil activity.

If I saw someone, for example, following a metaphorical path on which I knew there was a huge pit, I would be sinning against charity if I failed to warn him of the danger. I would not be "judging" him if I shouted over, "hey, buddy, the path you've chosen leads to destruction--you going to fall into a pit!" That person should not get angry with me simply because I tried to warn him of danger. He is free to disregard my warning, but if he falls into the pit anyway, at least it won't be on my head since I knew about the danger and TRIED to warn him of it. (If I am mistaken and there actually IS NO danger, there is no real harm in my well-intentioned warning--one should always be cautious anyway.)

If a thing--anything--is objectively true (+), it cannot at the same time also be false (-). A person may be unwilling or unable to recognize the objective nature of this truth, but it remains true nonetheless. Getting angry and complaining about it changes nothing. A person can be truly happy only by conforming to objective truth.

(On the other hand, if I'm a raving lunatic and everything I've said in this essay is a load of hogwash, getting upset about it won't help either, since I would be (according to that scenario) a raving lunatic and your "reasoning" would be lost on me anyway.)

So (to answer my original question) if a person ever tells you he doesn't believe in anything in particular (e.g. regarding religious faith or human behavior), or that he doesn't accept the notion that truth can be objective, since (he says), "what's true for YOU isn't necessarily true for ME" or "MY truth is different than YOUR truth," he is either lying or doesn't really understand what truth is. This would not be a positive situation. Perhaps he's just being negative.