Is there indeed a single truth, as realists of all camps, ie, from believers of all kinds to pure rationalists, claim? In my latest post, I demonstrated that there can’t be.
Now, I understand that this fact can’t be understood by believers in any kind of God(s), but it surprises me that it is so difficult to understand by believers in a rational truth. It isn’t extremely difficult to understand that conceptualization is fundamentally orthogonal, and that there thus can’t be an unambiguous middle (ie, single rational truth), so what is it that stops this understanding from penetrating into the minds of realists (or to expressing it?)? The only obstacle that comes to my mind is that it would put the power position of rationality in the Western world at risk. If it becomes part of general knowledge that rationality can’t reach a single truth about the world, then people in general may again turn to the religion that rationality made them turn against over the last 600 years. Rational people are simply afraid of losing their grip of power to religion.
This choice may appear given to rational people, but maybe not if the consequences of it is clear. The fundamental problem is that the notion of a single truth in rationality is irrational (which thus isn’t extremely difficult to understand). This problem induces the question among rationalists whether it is more advantageous to maintain the obviously erroneous claim that there is a single rational truth or rationally abandon it. (This question is further complicated by that no rationalist can know how many other rationalists that understand it.) The most honest choice is to abandon it, but the most profitable choice is to maintain it. In this choice, rationalists as a group have hitherto chosen to maintain it.
The worst problem with this choice (ie, irrational claim) is, however, that it logically leads into typology, including screwed approaches like racism, when reality actually not is about types, but about variation. The irrational choice thus logically leads into irrational conclusions. Saving the rational approach with this choice thus leads into irrationality.
This problem actually restricts rationality’s possibility to save itself into abandoning its claim as an alternative to religion, into admitting that it is merely a practical way to handle reality. It has to admit that its representatives are not Gods, nor have The Answer, but just do the best they can rationally. It has to abandon its claim of being able to finally describe reality unambiguously, instead admitting that reality is actually rationally incomprehensible. (Ie, we can build computers, but we can’t understand reality.)