Home

REALITY is all that Matters

We live in a very pluralistic[1] world. There is almost no limit to how many different beliefs and belief systems, lifestyles, cultural norms, behavioral norms, etc., exist in our world. Actually, in societies such as ours in the modern western world, the words “norm” or “normal” have become outmoded and virtually meaningless, even politically incorrect. The intellectual elites of our time, the “progressive thinkers”, have in large measure embraced a philosophy we call “Postmodernism” – the belief that there really are no absolutes, such as absolute reality or absolute truth. This is also known as “Relativism”, and in particular gives rise to “moral relativism” – there are no absolute moral standards of right and wrong. It is closely associated with what is known as “Nihilism”, which in philosophy is defined as “extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence” (Google online dictionary). According to the basic underlying philosophical principle “reality” is somewhat of an abstract concept – doesn’t really in essence exist, or to the extent that it does exits, it doesn’t matter. “Reality” by this definition is more a matter of perception. What any individual perceives to be reality, or a reality, is their reality, and that is all that matters. In other words, they contend that Perception is all that Matters.

In fact, no one really believes this. We all recognize that there are those whose perceptions of reality are very much out of touch with reality – except for those who are indeed out of touch with reality. All sane people call a paranoid schizophrenic crazy, recognizing that their perceptions of reality are not reality at all – even though to them such perception is a reality. And in fact, the most “tolerant” protagonist of the “no absolutes” Postmodern philosophy, are most often mercilessly intolerant of those whose perceptions of reality are in opposition to their own. From their perspective, someone like a conservative evangelical Christian who believes that the Bible is absolute truth, is an enemy of society, a threat which needs to be neutralized if not eliminated from the market place of ideas and freedom of expression.

Of course, from the standpoint of reason and logic, nothing could be more absurd and self-contradictory than the denial of absolute reality, which gives rise to absolute truth. Whether it is a matter of physical realities, or more along the lines of spiritual realities, such as laws or principles that govern our realm of existence, only a complete fool could entertain the notion that absolute realities don’t really exist. Nevertheless, many if not most of the intellectual elite of our day take great pride in their self-perceived superiority, absolutely certain that there are no absolutes (ironically self-contradictory).

What is less foolhardy are the philosophical questions in the realm of what is known as epistemology – i.e. what can be known, and how can we know it? Is man capable of discovering and discerning what actually is absolute reality, and how can we know if what we have discovered and discerned is in fact the absolute reality, or just our perception of it? This may be more like what much of the Postmodernism is really all about, which is more a matter of agnosticism – that whatever the absolute reality is we can’t really know it for sure.

Since there is little point in trying to convince a fool of much of anything, I won’t waste much energy on defending the premise that absolute reality, hence absolute truth, are in themselves realities. Clearly when it comes to matters of human experience, as in historic events, no one could question that things did or did not happen in reality, and an accurate recording or recounting of what really did happen is absolute truth. Anything short of such an accurate account is not truth but falsehood, at best mistaken, often just a lie (as in the case of “history revisionism”). Furthermore, no rational person would argue that what matters most is what actually did happen, if one is to be dealing with reality. However, in today’s world there are many who would argue, or maintain, that there are other more important considerations than just what actually happened. There are the perceptions about what happened, people’s feelings about it and their reactions to such perceptions. Men who think that they know better what is best for a society, or for humanity in general, believe they should manipulate perceptions of reality, and hence the reactions, and in turn the behavior of the masses. To them the truthfulness or reality of what actually did happen is relatively inconsequential – doesn’t matter. I.e. Perception is all that Matters.

Ironically, the very motivation and justification for such a philosophical approach to perception of reality, is its undoing. Ostensibly, the whole world could live together in peace if we just eliminate the notion that there are absolutes, absolute realities, and absolute truth. Obviously it is true that different perceptions of reality or truth give rise to conflict. Different groups who follow disparate sets of beliefs about what is or is not reality, or truth, or right and wrong, become at odds with each other, which leads to all kinds of conflict, even fighting and war. However, the ill-conceived notion that this problem can be solved by eliminating reality, truth, and right and wrong, is the epitome of foolishness. It amounts to nothing more than replacing a rational basis for beliefs (hence worldviews), involving reason, with nothing but speculation, opinions, feeling about things, etc.. It certainly will not eliminate the different perceptions of reality or truth, which leads to the conflict, but rather only perpetuate more of it.

As the saying goes, those who believe in nothing will believe in anything. When absolute reality and hence absolute truth is not a real thing, what is to take its place? If there really is no such a thing as an elephant, the four blind men are all equally right, and at the same time equally wrong – which is of course complete nonsense. If it were just blind men perceiving and describing something such as a non-existent elephant, it would be comical science, but with no consequence (though perhaps a little more consequential if it were a lion, or an alligator). But when it comes to determining the intrinsic value of a human life, such as related to the origins of that human life, the consequences are of existential significance. When it comes to the spiritual life, and matters of life after death, misconceptions and miscalculations are of incomparable consequence. When people begin to believe in virtually anything, and everything, diversity becomes the holy grail. Plurality replaces the unity which allows a society to become a cohesive whole. In place of a “global community” where we all live together in peace and harmony, we have a collection of very disparate units or smaller groups, which are divided along lines of not only race, and religion, and ethnic cultures, but ideological divides as well. This gives rise to “identity politics”, and “class envy” leading to “class warfare”, and a whole class of unethical, unscrupulous, power hungry politicians, who exploit these already existing differences. They are able to do so by manipulating those who have become persuaded that there is no reality or truth except what they perceive as reality or truth. They are also then taught what to believe is reality and truth – their own reality and truth (ignorance is the void to be filled with misinformation). Then, in complete contradiction to the underlying principle (of no absolutes), they are led to believe that such versions of reality and truth are actually the ones that are best for them and all mankind, and other versions are actually the enemies of what is best (i.e. Political Correctness – a form of “groupthink”). In such a social climate, each group becomes its own contingency, with its own agenda, and in fact becomes distrustful, judgmental and often even very combative against those who oppose their perceptions and ensuing agendas. Instead of a peaceful global community, we experience an escalation of division and conflict at every level, beginning at the local level right down to the family unit, and neighbors divided against neighbors.

If in fact one is to accept the notion, or what has become the ubiquitous belief that there are no absolutes and everything is relative, such that any one person’s perception is equally as valid as another’s even if they are diametrically opposed to each other, we eliminate any rational basis for determining or deciding what is believable. Without a ruler or yardstick, a standard by which to measure, measurement becomes meaningless. Without some kind of “gold standard”, value becomes meaningless. We can speak of relative size or value, but that has little real meaning. For a microbe an ant is huge, but for the ant the human is huge and for the human the ant is rather tiny. To an aborigine a million dollar bill is a worthless piece of paper, but a live cow means wealth. Not until we have a standard by which to measure or value anything do such value judgments as big or small, or degrees of value have any real objective meaning. This is even more true in the realm of thoughts, ideas and beliefs, especially as related to philosophies and world views. It makes no sense to try to reason about anything, if there is no absolute reality or truth, hence no standard for what is more or less reasonable. Value judgments become meaningless if there is no absolute standard, no measuring stick by which to determine greater or lesser value of something. I would judge the Aborigine to be pretty stupid and unreasonable for refusing to sell me his cow for a million dollar bill. He would judge me stupid and unreasonable for trying to take his valuable cow in trade for a small piece of paper with some kind of scribbling on it.

And again, the same applies even more so when it comes to determining right and wrong, moral versus immoral, ethical versus unethical. In the world of relativity, with no standard of right and wrong, a very religious man can kill a thousand innocent people, or even one of his own children, and be hailed as a heroic saint – it was dictated by his cultural and religious beliefs to please his God. Another can lie and steal and even commit genocide on a massive scale because he believes there is no God, and that mankind is better off if a superior race, his own race, rids itself of human contamination of those inferior races. What is to say one of these is better than the other, or worse than the other, or better or worse than any other?

A very famous philosopher argued that the characteristics of reason and conscience and humility and morality and belief in equality and limits on power of the ruling class (as in “aristocracy”, the “superman”), were undesirable weaknesses, and that evil is a necessary good for mankind – his name was Friedrich Nietzsche. His philosophical views were rooted in a belief in Darwinian Evolution, and an Atheistic rejection of Christ and Christianity. His philosophical ideas are associated with Fascism, Nazism, and Post-modernism, and often referred to as Nihilism. Without absolutes, or an absolute objective standard of morality, ethics, right and wrong, on what rational basis could anyone argue against Nietzsche’s declarations of reality – his reality (other than perhaps the fact that he was institutionalized for mental illness toward the end of his life, dying certifiably insane – a mainstream value judgment)?

A relativists may argue that one set of beliefs and philosophy or world-view is superior to another on the basis of humanitarian considerations – but then how they define what is “humanitarian” is strictly a matter of their own reality. That same humanist would argue that killing an innocent baby just before, or in some cases even after just after they are born, is humane (protects the rights of the mother), but the death penalty for a convicted murderer is inhumane. Furthermore, eugenicist argue that genocide is humane, or killing the disabled, the weak and the inferior, or at least sterilizing them, in order to breed a healthy superior race of human beings. On what rational basis can we condemn killing, or any kind of sexual behavior such as pedophilia, if there are no moral absolutes? Reason just becomes a matter of individual opinion, based on personal biases and preferences, and logic based on unverified and unverifiable assumptions, based on individual opinions, biases and preferences – i.e. circular reasoning. Hence, we get pluralism, diversity, with no realistic possibility of anything other than ever escalating division and conflict (except by externally enforced suppression of such diversity and conflict). Hence, the undoing. Getting rid of a belief in absolutes only magnifies and exaggerates the problems associated with the disparity between the many diverse groups in a society while stripping away any basis for bringing them together – getting them in touch with the absolute realities which in fact may be all they have in common.

Alternatively, there is a real world, and real events, which are independent of any observer’s perception (except God), but are objective realities in and of themselves. Any observer who accurately perceives those realities is in a position to engage their own faculties of reason, to form their own beliefs, and hence their world view, and to make rational decisions with respect to their best course of action – i.e. behavior. The validity of such perceptions, and in turn such beliefs, can be measured against what can be known of the absolute reality (and ultimately the results of such choices and behavior). The whole point of the study of the sciences, and history, is ostensibly to gain insight into objective realities (otherwise such endeavors are little more than exercises in futility – or attempts to undergird subjective versions of reality, providing ammunition for enhanced conflict between opponents in the pluralistic society). We live in what we call a “modern” world (which is how every generation describes itself for at least hundreds years), in which we are enjoying the benefits of many advances (though some perceive them as negatives), especially in the fields of technology and medicine. None of these ostensible advances came as result of men who believed that there are no absolute realities, that it is all just a matter of what observers perceive. Rather they are the products of disciplined approaches to seeking and finding objective realities in the physical realm. When George Washington became ill the most brilliant medical minds of his time diagnosed his illness based on their perceptions of the reality. They applied leeches and bled him to death. More accurate perceptions of the same reality today produce more effective, and more desirable cures (assuming premature death is deemed undesirable, and life or survival is deemed desirable). Columbus went against the scientific and religious consensus of his day (along with Galileo), which led to the discovery of the Americas – his perceptions of reality were more aligned with absolute reality, hence his success, and our history.

The point is, there are serious consequences with respect to whether or not there is objective reality, and then whether or not one’s perception is in fact consistent with that reality. If there is absolute reality, then there is absolute truth, inasmuch as all we mean by “truth” is the communication about that reality. With respect to consequences, the superiority or inferiority of behavioral choices could be judged by the desirability or acceptability of the outcome or product of such choices. But then we come back again to the value judgments – on what basis do we assess acceptability or desirability? Some today actually maintain Columbus discovering America was a bad thing – he was just a plunderer and brought sickness and disease to the poor indigenous native inhabitants, and eventually their exploitation by Europeans (and that would be us). Who is right, and who is wrong? By what standard can we make such value judgments? Without some standard, based on some absolutes, even a discussion about good or bad or right or wrong, is pointless, silly, meaningless. That being the case, what possibility could there be for disparate groups with disparate beliefs and differing sets of values, to come together, to reach any kind of agreement that would allow them to live together? If there is no absolute reality, no such as thing as real truth, what would be the goal of each group, and individuals in the group, other than to gain dominance over those with whom they disagree on what matters to them?

However, no matter what any individual or group of individuals perceive their reality to be, their perception will largely determine their actions and their actions will incur the consequences. But the consequences will be determined by the absolute realities , no matter what their perceptions of those realities may be (unless they have the power to change them). If one perceives conflict and considerable hostility between various diverse groups, divided on all kinds of (racial, class, ideological, political, etc.) as a desirable outcome, then relativistic Post-modernism is a good thing. If one sees pain, suffering, and death as good things, then the consequences of denying or ignoring absolute reality is acceptable, perhaps desirable to them. If such perception is the case it is only because of the absence of any kind of absolute standard with respect to what is right or wrong, what is good or bad. However, what is in any case inarguable is that such outcomes are not in the interest of the survival of either an individual or a society, or for that matter humanity at large. On the other hand, if one can agree that survival is generally a good thing, a desirable outcome, and thus pain and untimely unjust death, and conflict and hostility are undesirable outcomes, then we are left with one inescapable conclusion – reality matters. It is only those behaviors that are compatible and consistent with the absolute realities, that will result in desirable outcomes. No matter what anyone perceives, the outcome or consequences for their actions will be determined by the absolute realities. Thus, in that sense, REALITY IS ALL THAT MATTERS.

[1] Pluralistic – relating to or advocating a system in which two or more states, groups, principles, sources of authority, etc., coexist: a multicultural pluralistic society where people’s values are respected. Philosophy – relating to a system of thought that recognizes more than one ultimate principle: the society is committed to a pluralistic approach to philosophy. (Google Dictionary)