Truth vs. Philosophy

"If God is everything, than everything can be found through God."

We live in a world that demands absolute definitive ways of life and morality. This is where philosophies came into being. Philosophies are stated absolute definitive ways of life and morality. They are our flawed human ways of trying to make sense of truth and state it. But unfortunately, being flawed human beings, we cannot define these ways of right and wrong in absolute terms. (Absolute meaning applying to all....such as “maxims”). A common maxim known to society these days is “Just do it”. The phrase acts as an encouragement. But to consider it an absolute, (a maxim), would be very foolish. I can think of more situations in which fallowing that maxim would be a terrible idea than situations where it would be a good idea. I believe the absolute use of maxims to be a foolish way of living, for it leaves no room for exception from case to case and one can end up doing the opposite then was intended by blindly fallowing said maxim.

This isn’t to say that there aren’t absolute objective truths. It's just that, being human, we cannot define them in absolute ways (chalk them out for everybody). That is to say, we can know and understand truths but we cannot give definitive absolute answers to the truth in ways of right or wrong because the reasons for those answers cannot apply to everything. There is a “correct” philosophy of life, but we as flawed human cannot define it in absolutes.... That would put us on the same level of God (the ultimate representative of Truth). But we have the privilege of seeking understanding in that philosophy as we go through life.

There is a right and wrong way of life. Those rights and wrongs can be found and understood (the answers can be found) but we cannot define those answers in absolute terms. Philosophy attempts to. Here is a small example. I am going to give you two situations, both are the same situation, but both have different answers in truth:

-------Would it be right to x-immorality (kill an innocent man) --If it meant saving 100 men from dying?
If thought about (or prayed about) enough, one would come to an understanding that the answer is "no"
-------Would it be right to y-immorality (lie to an innocent man) --If it meant saving 100 lives?
If thought about (or prayed about) enough, one would come to an understanding that the answer is "yes"

Now, regardless of the truth in these answers, your reason for the first answer would be because it is never ok to take an innocent life -That is: regardless of the intent, reasoning, or outcome, the act in and of itself is still wrong. (That would be the maxim applied to the moral reasoning in this situation). And keep in mind that if something is to be considered a “maxim”, it must be fallowed in all situations it can be applied to.
So if you were going to define that reason in absolute terms (as a maxim), you would have to apply it to both situations (because they are the same) and yet they have different answers. You would have to say no to lying because regardless of intent, reasoning, or outcome, the act in and of itself is wrong. And yet you know the correct answer is yes.......?

You know that those answers are truth but you cannot define why in absolute terms because both answers differ. This is what philosophy tries at. They try to define write and wrong, concepts of life and morality in absolute terms. They do this because we, as humans, know that there is a truth so why can’t we define it. What we don’t understand is that in being human, we are flawed. Therefore we cannot perfectly define these truths in absolute definitive ways, even though those truths do exist.

Philosophies demand an absolute yes or no. That is to say, the way philosophies are thought out, they are presented in such a way where it demands all of your agreeing rather than just part. No one realizes that no human maintained philosophy is without its contradictions and its flaws if drawn out in absolutes. No one can put themselves on the same level as God, but we have the blessing of being able to strive for him and come to more of an understanding on truth as we grow.

 Take Kant's Philosophy on absolute moral rules for example. It is an excellent philosophy, but when dug deep enough into, it has its contradictions and flaws. He acknowledges the existence of absolute morals. However, he is mistaken when he tries to define them. According to Kant, lying is an absolute moral rule. (He would be mistaken if he said it was not) but he is also mistaken by saying it is. If a band of soldiers knocked on your door and asked if you knew where any Jews were (during the time of their persecution) and you were hiding a family in your basement, you would obviously realize the moral thing to do is lie and say no. However, Kant says that is immoral. He says that lying is an absolute moral rule because regardless of intent, reasoning and outcome, the act in and of itself (lying) is still wrong. Therefore it was immoral of you to lie in that situation. It is a great philosophy to learn from and take reference to (much like religion) but the ideas it proposes cannot be drawn out so perfectly by our mere mortal human minds. And yet killing an innocent man is, rightfully, considered to be an absolute moral rule?

There are absolute moral rules but we cannot define them (as we try) because we are incapable. You should never kill an innocent man. That is an absolute moral. I acknowledge that. But by saying that, I must also agree that all morals are absolute because of the reason (the maxim I would apply) a moral would be absolute. So how can I believe that killing innocence is an absolute immorality and not believe lying is an absolute immorality? Believe some morals are absolute but others are not? If the reason for a moral to be absolute (regardless of reason, intent and outcome, the act in and of itself is still wrong) demands a correlation with all other morals? This confused me for quite some time. But then I realized my confusion was the answer. I know of absolute objective truths but I am incapable of defining them.

This leads me to say that one can always find the truth of right or wrong in any situation and understand it but no one can give an absolute definitive reason for it (apply a maxim). Its like trying to definitively explain Faith, when the whole meaning of faith is striving to understand that which cannot be fully and absolutely explained or proved. It does not mean its not truth...It just means I cannot define it in absolutes because I am incapable.

Religions are philosophies. You might find that most religions would say lying is a sin. Now that is true generally speaking, but that cannot be defined as an absolute (I would never think it was a moral thing to do to say yes to those soldiers. In fact, it would be immoral of me to be truthful). Religions are well thought out definitive absolutes in concepts of life and morality. Therefore, if fallowed wrongly, in order to be "labeled" as having a particular religion, you have to agree and fallow it to its very core. What most religious people don’t understand is that, in doing so, you are encouraging a dictation, and as a result, you are nothing but a slave to what others have told you to be true. As a result, one would obtain the stubborn belief that their religion is the only right there is (involving God). That isn’t to say that there are no truths in religion. Religion holds more truth than any other type of philosophy. But in order to have a belief, you have to believe it for reason, not just because of nurture, environment or dictation. Otherwise, the person who is raised atheist has is “right” in believing what he or she does just because that is how they were raised. But, fortunately, we all have the ability to seek for truth and find it, regardless of nurture or environment. This defines Faith and its power over Religion alone (see note: “Faith vs. Religion”). However, if fallowed and used correctly, Religion is a great guideline because it sums up truths but they are not the start of truth. You do not need a religion to define what is right and wrong (however accurate it may be) because, unlike religion, truth in right and wrong has always exited. God did not just make up rules and hand them out. He gave them to us as summed up conclusive points to understandings in truths regarding right and wrong. Truth came before religion and the rules.

This leads me to again say: If God is everything, than everything can be found through God.

This means that regardless of religious teachings, one can always find the truth through God and God alone, for the truth existed before the presenting of the rules. I am a Catholic because I find that particular religion most helpful (most correct) to refer to as a guide for my Faith (my striving to understand and try for truth). In all the understandings I have come to and am still trying for sometimes it’s great to have that religion to look to when I forget one. All I have to do is look at Catholicism’s conclusive point and stance on the matter and I will remember the understandings I have come to on that matter by methods of Faith. This goes to show that religion (however helpful and important) is not necessarily "necessary" to find and understand truth.... only God is, and everything can be found through him because he is everything.