Does truth exist?

Ayn Rand, one of the most influential people in modernity, once said that the negatives (negative affirmations) should not be proven, and that this is also a logical law. This same argument is constantly repeated by skeptics of all kinds, who, to justify their disbelief or ignorance, resort to repeating a sentence of which they don't know.

Rand will excuse me, she is a person of extraordinary intelligence, but she is only trying to justify a dogmatic position, with logical laws that sincerely don't exist. The only thing that should not be proved in a theoretical body, in a dialogue or in a discussion, are the axioms, that is, propositions that are considered so evident to common sense that they don't need proof. But any affirmation, whether positive or negative, must be proven. In fact, the same statement "negatives cannot be prove" requires proof, as it is in itself a positive affirmation.

Imagine if someone tells us "the world does not exist" and without presenting any evidence, shield herself by saying that the negatives should not be proven. We would find ourselves in an uncomfortable position. We could point it out to him, and say that if he exists, then there must be a world in which he dwells, however, he could again deny his existence, and without evidence, because the negatives cannot prove, and demand from us proof of his existence. We could say that we see and hear it, but he could argue that the crazy people see hallucinations and hear voices that don't exist, so that is not enough proof, although it could also deny the existence of the sound we hear and the vision we see, because the negatives don't need proofs, and demand that we prove the existence of such sound and vision. In fact, we can repeat this process perhaps ad infinitum if we were to take for granted a logical absurdity such as that the negatives cannot prove.

All affirmations, I personally dare to affirm, are positive and negative in turn, depending on the formulation. If I affirm that the truth is that the world exists, then I affirm that the lie is that the world does not exist, because an affirmation, not only tells us what is true, but also tells us everything that is not true, that is, everything that is not that affirmation.

If I affirm that the ball is completely red, then I affirm in turn that the truth is that the ball has a color and it's red, and that the lie is that the ball has no color, or is blue, yellow, green, and a long etcetera. In fact, there are other implicit affirmations such as that there is a ball, or that I am able to perceive the existence of the ball, to perceive its color, and to perceive its totality.

Now, does this mean that we must accept absurd propositions like the aliens inhabit planet Earth because we cannot prove otherwise? No. All statements need to be proven; otherwise, they are statements that lack logical validity.

Both positive and negative must be proved.

For the human being to be able to construct knowledge, in order to build a structure of solid truth, he established his foundations in the axioms, things that seem so evident that they don't need proof, nevertheless, the axioms are not taken as truth, they are taken as the status quo, and anything that contradicts or reinforces the axioms, or that is mounted on them, must be proved.

And I think this is very important to clarify today, that it seems that everyone would like to ignore it, but when someone can't prove that something exists, and in turn can't prove that it does not exist, this does not mean that this thing exists or not, but on the contrary it means that we ignore its existence, and any posture other than this is an irrational stance.

It is also important to mention that, unless we are in a discussion, nobody, absolutely nobody, should prove anything to us, in any case we are the ones who should look for the proofs. If you are waiting for someone or something to come and prove something you don't know, then you demonstrate not only your ignorance, but also show that you are ignorant because of your reluctant attitude and lack of interest in the truth.

Now, if our knowledge is based on axioms, and we have no capacity to prove the axioms, does not this necessarily mean that there is no such thing as truth, or that even if it exists, is it relative or unknown to man?

Does truth exist?

In modernity have emerged various groups that reject the existence of the truth, or to a lesser extent, that the human can access it, such are the cases of nihilism or relativism, although it is not a new belief.

These hypotheses lack logic, and cannot be sustained by the most superficial analysis.

When someone affirms that the truth does not exist, he is not denying the existence of the truth, on the contrary, he is accepting it and is appropriating it, since he is making an affirmation. If someone says that the truth does not exist, and believes that what he is saying is true, then we can notice that gigantic contradiction. On the contrary, if he believes that it is a lie, then he is accepting that there is a truth. As I said, a position that can not stand even the most basic analysis.

On the other hand, those who say that the truth does exist, but that man can't understand it, are again affirming that they possess the truth, therefore, they enter into a contradiction again. If man cannot understand the truth or know it, how is it possible that he knows this in the first instance? Basic contradiction.

Finally, some people say that truth is relative, and this concept is divided into two; first, that it is subjective, that is, the truth varies depending on the observer; and second, that it is temporary, that is, what is true today is not tomorrow. However, as you may already note, this argument also has a contradiction within its existence. If truth is indeed relative, then we are affirming in turn that there is a non-relative truth that dictates that "truth is relative". If I say that truth is relative, I affirm in turn that there is no relativity in the fact that truth is relative, or in other words, I affirm that there is an eternal truth and that is that truth is relative. And as we realized, the truth cannot be two contradictory things at the same time, as nothing can be, is the basic principle of non-contradiction. How is the truth going to be relative and eternal at the same time? To attribute relativity to the truth is to confuse the truth with something that is not.

However, having dismembered all the weak arguments that try to deny the existence of the truth, and this negation being a proof of its existence, I don't believe there is any doubt about the truth, and this truth is that the truth exists.

But even more, I will present the maximum proof that truth exists, and it is precisely ignorance of it, although to explain such an oxymoron I will go back more than 2000 years ago, and I will place myself in ancient Greece, to tell a little story from one of the most important, influential, and wise thinkers of all human history; Socrates.

I know that I know nothing

When Chaerephon, in ancient Greece, asked the Oracle of Delphi if there was a wiser in the world than Socrates, they replied that no, that Socrates was indeed the wisest of all. When Socrates learned of such a response, stupefied tried to decipher that divine message, since for Socrates, there was no wisdom in him.

It was then, walking around the city, visiting the sages of various professions, to find a man wiser than him, and present it to the Oracle, showing them their mistake in interpreting the divine signs, since he evidently did not possess such wisdom. However, Socrates was unable to find anyone who knew more than he, although he considered that he knew nothing.

These signs were interpreted masterfully by Socrates himself, who, taking the sentence of the oracle as true, could only say that the wisest of men, by divine sanction, is the one who recognizes, like Socrates, that he knows nothing. Here is the source of wisdom, admitting our own ignorance.

This sentence is often used only in the metaphorical sense, when it is not misinterpreted to support relativism, however, I believe that the only truth from which the human can depart to know all the others, is not the famous "cogito ergo sum" of Descartes, but the acceptance of the ignorance of Socrates.

The only thing that man can know with certainty, is that he knows nothing, therefore, this is the first true statement from which all other certainties must depart. When man thinks he knows, he shows that he does not know, but when man accepts that he does not know, he shows that he knows at least something, his ignorance.

And this is the logical basis of such thinking; Man is not omniscient, therefore, there is always something that escapes his knowledge. If something escapes his knowledge, man can not be totally sure of any affirmation. If man can not be totally sure of any affirmation, then man must admit that he is not certain of knowing anything. If man does not have the certainty of knowing anything, then man should not presume that he knows. Therefore, the man who says he knows, does not know, and the man who accepts that he does not know, at least knows something.

Thus, if a man knows that he does not know, he is discovering the truth, which is that he does not know it.

I mentioned above that if there is no evidence to say that the aliens inhabit planet Earth, as well as if there is no evidence to say that they do not inhabit it, then the only thing we could be sure of was our ignorance. We don't know if they inhabit the planet or not because we don't have the evidence, and our only certainty is that we don't know.

It is this, from my point of view, the only correct way to be always closer to the truth. And this is exactly the same thing that the great wise and ignorant Socrates said, what a magnificent message he has left us, and that he only did in his last statements.

This does not mean that we cannot believe things, because we believe things every day. This means that we must know that what we believe is only that, a belief, and that the truth may or may not be that. It is also a basis for knowing that truth exists, and that we should try to get as close as possible to it, without ever believing that we possess it.

All conflicts in human history have been created because two people or groups of people with different positions believe both to possess the truth. Nobody has ever fought believing that he is the bad guy, or that he has a lie, or that he is unjust, all on the contrary have believed to be good, to possess the truth, and to be fair, what happens is that they differ in such ideas.

Anyone who believes that he has the truth, does not possess it, because the truth is of gods rather than humans, because the latter are not omniscient to know everything that is intelligible, or omnipresent to know everything that is sensible, so there is always possibility of error.

You can see how the more someone knows something, the more they realize what they don't know. He who knows little believes he knows a lot and he who seems to know a lot knows that he knows little. The more we know about something, the more we become aware of our ignorance.

To conclude I will quote Simón Rodríguez who said:

Ignorance is the cause of all the evils that man does and does to others; and this is inevitable, because omniscience does not fit in a man; it can fit, to some extent, in a society (for the most and the least one is different from the other). A man is not guilty because he ignores - little is what he can know -, but it will be if he is in charge of doing what he does not know.

We could say then, that if a man ignores his ignorance, then everything he does will be flawed, because he will be doing exactly what he does not know.

---

Image Source: 1