PicoBlog

Thanks for your insight and specific example of "transcendental illusion."

My approach to truth is actually more of epistemological questions or concerns in metaphilosophy rather than metaphysic. I think I understand where Mahayana Buddhism is motivated to say that all things are empty which reflects my approach to truth or the implication of the necessity of initial assumption(which I think can also be defined as a "leap of faith" in epistemological sense or brute fact in causality argument).

I do acknowledge the truth or morality is contingent and relative to pragmatic function. However, the way I approach this matter is about how things get to exist relative to the different perspectives we take which ultimately carry out different themes or meanings. For example, there are many ways we can describe the object's movement based on different perspectives:

1. The object is moving

2. The object is being moved

3. X has caused the Object to move

3 statements share all similar statements of saying "Object is in motion" but differ in what statements ultimately purport. For example, the first statement is more concerned with a first-perspective account of what is moving relative to what is not moving, the second statement is more concerned with the autonomy of an object in motion, and the third statement is more concerned with investigating or identifying causality.

Therefore, when we make statements about truth or transcendental illusion, I would like to categorize them into greater detail where we can find the flaws in that system.

First, as I mentioned above, a valid perspective is required to accurately measure whether the statement can truly depict the nature of truth or condition.

For example, “transcendental illusion” is a hypothetical statement that depicts possible flaws in our thought process which can give us insight or skepticism. However, the argument is self-contradictive as the perspective of the argument relies heavily on the possibility of a flaw in the system which draws out faulty cognition. For example, if the premise of the argument is grounded by a consequence of necessary assumption which results in instability and faulty reasoning, we may perceive it as a strong premise for the "transcendental illusion" argument, but it is also a strong criticism for itself if we treat transcendental illusion as the necessary assumption in processing cognition. Similarly in "The Brain in a Vat thought experiment," I would argue that regardless of whether the brain exists in a vat is true or false, what one experiences will always be true, because this condition is necessary to even begin with skeptical concerns.

If I take the approach of different perspectives which yields different meanings, these two "transcendental illusions" and "The Brain in a Vat thought experiment" fail to create a meaningful connection that is pragmatic.

Therefore, going back to my main argument, I would argue Buddhism's idea that all things are empty is a valid statement, but it is an inaccurate statement to be applied to any principle or implication which makes itself meaningless and useless. This is where I pointed out the truth to be "acknowledged the limitation of our scope, yet committing to pursue deliberately”

This statement fits two qualities differently:

acknowledged the limitation of our scope: certainty of our belief in the past

yet committing to pursue deliberately: uncertainty of our belief in the past

this statement describes the nature of truth by presenting two conflicting ideas, while transcendental illusion or Buddhism's idea only supports the “certainty of our belief in the past.” This style of approach is similar to the idea that 0 divided by anything is 0 while anything divided by 0 is “unknown”, but we can create a special case where 0 divided by 0 is 0 rather than unknown-it since it cancels out each other. Similarly, when we approach with both certainty and uncertainty, my statement is not concerned about whether we can know the truth or not, but rather certainty is a necessity for uncertainty and uncertainty is a necessity for certainty for truth. Therefore, truth is the only quality that holds both certainty and uncertainty. If truth is to be only described as certainty or uncertainty, then we are making the nature of truth fallible and the subject of testing falsifiability which is the opposite of truth.

Finally, if something is true, then it should also be explained as “it is true because it could have been false,” in the case of truth, it cannot be explained as “it could have been false” which rises to quality of true nor be explained as “it could have been true” which rises to quality of false.

Expand full comment

ncG1vNJzZminoJq7b7%2FUm6qtmZOge6S7zGinrppfp7Kku82tnLGspZa5qsbEaKdomZKowbOtwq1kr6tdmLyvr9Geq55lpJ22r7fIp554raSirLS71KuannWgpMC1csKopKadnqnAfsDRrpxfraSirK6xw6KspnWnmq8%3D