The Truth IS!

We live in a society that has forgotten something essential to life: there is such a thing as objective truth. If you read the RNL regularly, you have heard Utah railing against what he calls post modernism. I agree with Utah. So, before we go any farther, let’s examine what post modernism means:


A general and wide-ranging term which is applied to literature, art, philosophy, architecture, fiction, and cultural and literary criticism, among others. Postmodernism is largely a reaction to the assumed certainty of scientific, or objective, efforts to explain reality. In essence, it stems from a recognition that reality is not simply mirrored in human understanding of it, but rather, is constructed as the mind tries to understand its own particular and personal reality. For this reason, postmodernism is highly skeptical of explanations which claim to be valid for all groups, cultures, traditions, or races, and instead focuses on the relative truths of each person. In the postmodern understanding, interpretation is everything; reality only comes into being through our interpretations of what the world means to us individually. Postmodernism relies on concrete experience over abstract principles, knowing always that the outcome of one’s own experience will necessarily be fallible and relative, rather than certain and universal.
Postmodernism is “post” because it is denies the existence of any ultimate principles, and it lacks the optimism of there being a scientific, philosophical, or religious truth which will explain everything for everybody – a characterisitic of the so-called “modern” mind. The paradox of the postmodern position is that, in placing all principles under the scrutiny of its skepticism, it must realize that even its own principles are not beyond questioning. As the philospher Richard Tarnas states, postmodernism “cannot on its own principles ultimately justify itself any more than can the various metaphysical overviews against which the postmodern mind has defined itself.”

Post modernism is the source of our modern belief that what is true for you may not be true for me, or that what you think is moral may not be moral for me. There is a simple problem with the notion of post modernism: IT IS WRONG! We can prove it is wrong.  And this means everything that has been built on it is wrong because it was built on a fundamental fallacy.

Now, if you are a subscriber to post modernism, your first reaction to my assertion that your most basic beliefs are wrong would be to tell me “You can’t know that,” or “That’s your truth, but not mine.” OK, let’s prove that there is objective reality and truth in this world, and that it applies to everyone – and not just as a product of how we perceive this world.

This will actually be easier than you might think, and much shorter, too. All of logic is based on one simple statement that cannot be refuted or denied:

“Something either is, or it is not.”

OK, so the post modernist would immediately tell me that I can’t know anything is because it could all be imagined. I would counter with this well-known statement:

“I think, therefore I am.”

Our post modernist has no reply to this because, even if I have perceived reality incorrectly, I have still perceived it and that proves I am. It also proves the universe is. Whether or not we can say with certainty that we know the true nature of the universe or even of ourselves is irrelevant. We have proven that we are and the universe is by the very fact that we think, and this negates the fundamental principle upon which post modernism is built.

From this simple claim that something either is or is not, the rest of logic is built. Learning those rules and how to use them correctly is known as “right reasoning” (not right in the political sense, but right as in the correct way).

The same principle applies to morality. There are universal truths that are imbedded in all individuals not suffering from some sort of mental disease or defect (i.e. sociopaths). We all have an innate sense that some things are wrong. We are born with a sense of ownership. From the very start, even if we try to teach them otherwise, children have a sense of ownership of their things, and they know the difference between their things and their parents’ property. We all have the internal sense that our life belongs to us, and that it is somehow wrong to take another person’s life. Whether or not we conform to these moral imperatives, or if we manage to learn how to suppress or ignore them is irrelevant. What matters is they exist, and they are universally the same. This reveals the existence of a universal sense of morality. Once again, the post modernist has no answer to this.

Now, what will typically happen is the post modernist will twist the arguments to suit their purposes. The problem is, there is no rational reason to accept their arguments. In fact, their arguments are self-defeating. Just for the moment, pretend the post modernist argument is correct: there is nothing we can really “know” because we can’t be certain anything exists as we think it does. Now, ask yourself this, if they are correct, how can the post modernist even know what they are saying has any validity?  How can they know their ideas are true and they are not perceiving them wrong?  How can they even know the words they are using mean what they think they mean?  But the post modernist would likely answer with something like “Exactly!  Now you get it, we can’t “know” any of that.”  To which we should reply, if you can’t “know” a stove is hot and you touch it and feel heat, how can you “know” you are feeling heat, or that the heat is coming from the stove?  So please, Mr./Ms. post modernist, place your head on this stove and leave it there until you can tell me for sure whether or not it is hot or not and how we can “know” it is really heat you feel and that the heat is coming from the stove and not something made up in your mind.  Then tell him/her you’ll be back as soon as he/she figures that out using post modern reasoning only.

You see, this “post modernism” is not new. In fact, it is ancient. These ideas were first postulated by a group of philosophers who called themselves “the skeptics.” Fortunately for Western society, these people actually tried to live their beliefs and, as a result, they died off rather quickly.

Whether or not we perceive the universe as it actually is doesn’t matter. How we perceive it is still real, even if it were an illusion. Ask yourself how long you would leave your head on that stove and why?  This is a reality that applies to almost every aspect of how we interact with the world around us.  If we perceive gravity to work as it does 100% of the time, what sense does it make to listen to someone who is arguing we can’t “know” gravity even exists, let alone that it works the way we think. It is sufficient to know that, if we step off a cliff, we are going to fall. The major flaw in the reasoning of the ancient skeptics and post modernists is that they have intelligence but lack all wisdom (or what some might call common sense).

It is not enough to know how to use logic or to do science; one must understand how to use them.  Unfortunately, too many people in our society today have no understanding of this problem and have accepted that “science” and “reason” can explain everything about the universe and even our very existence.  Unfortunately for these people, they believe this because they lack the wisdom and understanding to use logic and science correctly.   Logic and science are just tools, and like any other tool, they can be used correctly to do good or they can be used the wrong way to do harm.  For example:  at one time, science and reason had “proven” that non-whites were inferior beings, but mankind understands this is not true because of our awareness of our innate sense of universal morality. We have a wisdom that comes from our understanding of the things that science and logic cannot “prove,” and that let’s us “know” that the things science has “proven” in the past were never true to begin with.

This is the danger of people who have been educated beyond their wisdom and education, yet have been allowed to assume positions of leadership and power.  In the past, these people usually removed themselves from the equation due to their own ignorance.  The problem today is that too many of the people in charge of our society and our social institutions have convinced themselves that there is validity in these failed ideas, and now they are forcing their failed ideas on the rest of society. This is why we are forced to continue with Keynesian economic policies; green energy programs and the notion that you can eliminate poverty by simply giving someone money they did not earn.  Unfortunately for society, none of these ideas are true, but they all stem from the reasoning that has grown out of the post modern movement.  If this insanity is not stopped and stopped soon, this time the skeptics/post modernists won’t destroy themselves, they will destroy us all.

But don’t worry, there’s a silver lining.  If they do destroy society, you’ll never realize it because you won’t “know” it’s been destroyed because there is no objective truth to know.

10 thoughts on “The Truth IS!

  1. I know nothing about post-modernism, so I will assume that your version of what a post-modernist might say is based on their works.
    I do want to take issue with this statement:

    at one time, science and reason had “proven” that non-whites were inferior beings, but mankind understands this is not true because of our awareness of our innate sense of universal morality…

    I’m not sure what scientists and reason ‘proved’ this, but slavery was not innately anathema to white people, because whites were not a major factor in the slave demographic.. The poll tax, the internment of the Japanese during WW2, the slaughter of our Indians, and other shameful episodes indicate that our morality is shaped more by our environment than by any hard-wired morality we might possess.
    George Washington was known have his slaves whipped or beaten when he felt it warranted, but maybe he would have whipped white slaves as well, had there been such..

    • I’d also encourage you to read the Eulogy of Washington delivered by Richard Allen. (I shouldn’t have to do this, but given our day and age… Please note Bishop Allen’s race)

      We, today, suffer from the politically constructed misconceptions surrounding the founding of this great nation. And though slavery was an issue, we have come to accept that it was universally favored and embraced when it was not. In like kind, we have convinced ourselves that Christianity played no role in the founding of this nation. The reality is the truth is 180 degrees opposed to the common consensus in our modern world which, to me, sort of tears asunder the claim to having progressed or be more enlightened than the times of our founders. If anything, we have regressed to the times of the French Revolution, and to this extent, I would rather have nothing to do with such a society as it is a mindless evil that cares not for what is – only what it wants to be.

  2. It is called “scientific racism” …many choose to forget it but the philosophical founders of socialism and communism, Voltaire, Kant and Hegel were practitioners and all the way through the early 1900’s this was considered legitimate “science”.

    What about German scientists who could “prove” that Aryans were a “superior race”? What about the eugenics of Margaret Sanger, another heroine of the left?

    What about non-Africans who were kept as slaves and gladiators by the pre-Christian Romans or the African tribes that were enslaved by other African tribes?

    What about the “vote” before the invention and acceptance of democratic self rule?

    Compare the internment of the Japanese-Americans and the violation of their rights to the internment of Jews in Germany and the violation of their LIVES.

    How many civilizations were wiped out as a function of settlement by other civilizations?

    How did all this end? It ended because morality won out over environment. It ended because Christianity won out over paganism. The 10 Commandments are just as true today as they were when God handed the Tablets to Moses. Did it take more than 15 minutes – yes it did.

    • Vell,to be honest vit you, I am a scientific racist und haf decided zat my superior race vill be za big brains! I don’t mean to frighten you, dahling, but eets all paht of my plan to vun day rule za vorld! Vee can talk of ze details later. For now, I vant zat my feet be stimulated!

      • I know you think you are kidding, but you shouldn’t take this so lightly. Do you know what “Iran” means in the native language? Aryan. And Iran was aligned with the NAZI’s in WW II for THAT reason. The Musslim Brotherhood has a long history with NAZIsm. There are VERY strong connections and ideological motivations here that are still alive in the Middle East today – and based on the same reasoning.

        You do know the Qur’an teaches that the Jews are monkeys and rats, etc, don’t you? Now where have you heard that language used toward the Jews in the past?

        • Vy don’t you haf a sense uv humour? Vaht has happened to your brain? Thees is unacceptable und you must be retrained immediately! But first, you may massage my back as you speak on Iran and the Quran……

  3. Pingback: Faith of Our Founders and the 180 Degree Rule « The Rio Norte Line

  4. Moses’ adherents owned slaves for the next 3000 years. Southern preachers used the Bible to defend slavery. Hitler used the Bible to justify his solution to the ‘Jewish problem’, and he called himself a Christian. And it was Christians in Rwanda who conducted the worst genocidal action of the nineties, at least.. You guys are nothing special.

    I’m not wanting to slam Christianity in particular, but it is the religion with which I am most familiar. The Hindus and their suttee; Gandhi was a racist; he was thrown off that train because refused to sit with Blacks, whom he felt were inferior, Moslems and stoning, the oppression of women by both religions, show that practitioners of Christianity are, more enlightened, or less savage, than any other.And, yeah, there are a few horse thieves in my ‘religion’ as well; Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, all mass murderers, all atheists.

    I also don’t want you thinking that I am in the ‘take Washington’s name off everything crowd’. He was a man of his times, and he would no more relinquish the economic power inherent in his property that Barack Obama was willing to cede the authority granted him by the Patriot Act. It is not in Man’s nature to relinquish power, control,, or territory/property.

    • “Moses’ adherents owned slaves for the next 3000 years. Southern preachers used the Bible to defend slavery. Hitler used the Bible to justify his solution to the ‘Jewish problem’, and he called himself a Christian. And it was Christians in Rwanda who conducted the worst genocidal action of the nineties, at least.. You guys are nothing special.”

      Why is this point so difficult for people to grasp. Melfamy, THIS is what Jefferson and other founders meant when they said the Gospel of Christ is the purest moral teaching known to man, but that man has corrupted it. It isn’t that God didn’t hand down the perfect structure for earthly govt., it is that man does not or cannot practice it properly.

      You might as well be saying that we shouldn’t have laws because people will break them. It’s the same principle. The validity of the one has nothing to do with the ability of another to follow it.

      It is not in Man’s nature to relinquish power, control,, or territory/property.

      EXACTLY! But the “fallen” nature of man does not negate the TEACHING. 😉

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.