The Wayless Truth -- The Philosophy of Plausibility Vs Complexity
Updated: Aug 11
Part I: The Intuitive Axiom
A Wayless Truth is a fundamental principle or reality that is immediately grasped without requiring extensive explanation or investigation. It is a self-evident truth that is often so apparent it is almost overlooked. While generally obvious, there are instances where its clarity is obscured, highlighting its distinctive nature amongst truths that require more components than it does.
Essentially, it is a truth that exists independently of logical deduction or empirical verification. It is a very basic, very "primitive" cornerstone of human understanding. Such subjects can provide a foundational basis for further thought and inquiry.
Key characteristics of a Wayless Truth:
Immediacy: It is grasped spontaneously, without conscious effort.
Self-evidence: Its truth is apparent without requiring proof.
Universality: It can be found throughout reality's different fields of study.
Foundationality: It can serve as a starting point for other, additional knowledge.
Occasional Misdiagnosis: While generally clear, reality is more complex than it meets the eye.
Part II: Examples of Intuition Beyond Reason
This special type of truth, is that simply is. Excessively, it can often be dismissed as mere intuition or even madness when measured against the stringent standards of scientific inquiry or philosophical examination.
Consider this ever-present knowledge that coffee can keep you awake. This isn't a conclusion reached through complex chemical analysis or philosophical pondering. It is a truth intuitively grasped by countless individuals.
Oftentimes, although not always true, wayless truths have to do with how we feel.
Similarly, when a fictional character inexplicably seems aware of their fictional existence, we accept this as a narrative device without demanding a logical explanation. This is known as breaking the fourth wall. This character's knowledge mirrors the unspoken understanding, the subtext, shared between the audience and the storyteller within the fictional medium.
Insights From Such Examples
These examples highlight a crucial point: the absence of a discernible "way" to a truth doesn't necessarily invalidate it. Our insistence on logical pathways can obscure the value of intuition and innate understanding.
While the scientific method is indispensable, it's not the sole authority figure of truth. Taking something with greater seriousness just because of this, is known as the authority fallacy. Yet, there might be a realm of knowledge beyond the reach of reason, a space where intuition reigns supreme... A spiritual realm?
Ironically, to embrace wayless truths is to acknowledge the complexity of human cognition, and to realize, with the help of Occam's Razor, that this complextiy often misses the mark.
Other than that, wayless truths may compel us to respect the power of the subconscious mind and the mysterious ways in which knowledge could be acquired. In an era dominated by data and logic, recognizing the validity of intuition can be a refreshing counterbalance.
Part III: A Potential Paradox In Truth-Seeking
Our pursuit of truth can ironically obstruct its discovery. We often impose rigid criteria on how truths should be unveiled, dismissing those that don't conform to our preconceived methods of validation. This skepticism, while essential, can become a barrier when it transforms into outright dismissal. Specifically, dismissal which keeps us farther from the truth, and not closer to it.
A more practical skepticism would be more about questioning our assumptions and priorities, which lead us to truth-seeking. To expand our understanding, we must be willing to entertain truths that arrive through unexpected channels, including those the logical mind might dismiss the most.
Just as we might consume a less palatable meal to avoid hunger, we should consider ideas that initially seem unappetizing. That is especially when the more conventional methods fail to prove their otherwise-dominant use for us.
Cause of Paradox: Position-related Biases
The position from which we view a claim significantly influences its acceptance. A fictional character's story-based meta-awareness is plausible within the story's reality. That is, though it might be labeled insanity in our world.
Similarly, the "weirdo" might be a truth-teller while the respected authority peddles falsehoods by manipulating the conventional methods many people choose to trust in.
As such, should we view that person with the lens of a psychological evaluation, we could ignore his words and where he comes from. In this case, such complexity could be a waste of our time. This highlights the fallacy of ad hominem - judging the claim based on the claimant.
That is, even though, that the exploration of truth has to do more with content, and less with the content-providers/content creators. As such, the mental state of the content creator/provider might not be as important in specific contexts.
To truly seek truth, we should consider cultivating a palate for the unexpected, as sometimes the answer lies beneath our noses. We should approach ideas with curiosity rather than condemnation, examining their content independently of their source, nor their path to their discovery.
Only then can we hope to overcome the paradoxes inherent in our quest for knowledge.
Conclusion
Truth is an elusive, yet basic feature of existence. It is often obscured by the biases of its pursuers. So much so, that they manipulate themselves unconsciously, when their bias in a method grows too extreme. We are inclined to accept claims that align with our preconceptions and dismiss those that do not. This is the confirmation bias, which leads to intellectual arrogance. It serves as a formidable obstacle to genuine understanding.
A more fruitful approach involves a suspension of disbelief, coupled with discrertion. We must cultivate a mental space where any proposition, no matter how absurd it may seem, is entertained as a potential truth. Otherwise, by using logic, we would only deter ourselves, paradoxically, from our very quest for the truth. That is because logic has its limits, as seen in the Grey Problem and in the Color Paradox.
Simultaneously, we should question even the most well-supported claims, searching for underlying assumptions or alternative explanations. This process, a constant mediation attempt between acceptance and doubt, is the hallmark of the skillful skeptic, who understands how interplay is expressed in many aspects of reality. From love and hatred, to good and evil.
Thus, rather than dismissing an eccentric man's behavior as delusional, the inquisitive mind might wonder: "What if this person has accessed a reality beyond our comprehension?" Conversely, when confronted with seemingly irrefutable evidence, we should ask: "Could there be an alternative explanation for these findings?". And, even, specifically, "Could there be a simpler, although less orthodox, explanation?
Adopting this balanced perspective, allows ourselves to be more mentally independent from the tyranny of preconceived notions.
We become explorers of the intellectual frontier, open to any possibility, regardless of its initial plausibility. And sometimes, specifically in the name of such plausibility!
.jpg)
Comments