Argumentative Essay about the Objective Truth

Regarding the argument about the existence of objective truth, I would first of all refer towards the argument of Philip Keneson in his theory against the misunderstood objective truth. The main message and the idea of Philip Kenneson is that the two words Relativism and Objective truth having same foundation and hence implications can corrupt human’s mind because these beliefs are based on the views from nowhere. So society needs to get enlightened while trusting their senses and developing their own views in the light of realism. Or otherwise people will have to succumb some in evident temptations. That will surely be challenging for the church, preaching the key belief as an objective truth, to defend their stance when obviously outside world is trying to find every other reason to defend their disapproval to the church. He clearly explains how relativism is the other name of Objective truth, in the lieu of a mistaken thought of an objective truth believer, who thinks his objectivity distinguishes him by having the true most belief while definitely being against relativism. Objective truth hence is how distinctive a group becomes, thinking they stand out of the rest of the people on the bases of just conjecture. Having such status can makes you left out in the society. Now the relativist thinks that by considering everyone to be on the right path by their own reference is either to avoid anarchy or to justify their own belief in order not to be criticized or questioned. They are fearful of their own belief system so in order to clarify their own ambiguity they spread relativism covering of their hidden objective truth hence excluding the humanistic approach from the core of their lives. In the end the people like Philip Kenneson are left to question this baseless belief system to make the way for us to introduce the humanistic approach in the core of our lives to attract the people towards a point of view within the human boundaries so that people no more say that churches are not questionable. And our belief is coherent to every aspect of our lives.

Now based on this simple logic Kenneson strongly denies the concept of relativism and establishing objective truth and wants everyone else to do so because if the basic concept of the church is corrupting it by being incapable of any evidence/ witness and the rest of the concepts that are the derivatives of the basic concept, are indeed wasting the time and energy of the people. And it doesn’t need to be feeling irritating or empty by not having it because as a matter of fact there is no objective truth and it is a very good thing so it is good news.

He has also mentioned the history of such inclusion. One of the pioneers Peter C. Moore, trying to disrupt the secular Gods henceforth setting a strong fight against relativism, left some work undone in the shape of Objectivism which at times he might not had realizedto be as Hazardous as Realism. Removing one Secular God, Realism and leaving behind its counterpart helped it grow extravagantly on the basis of existing realism in the people. Moore’s Family has spread their teachings throughout the Europe. Three main thinkers and contributor of their family, Locke, Descartes and Kant, set such philosophical frameworkwhich we are trying to get away from. From the theories they presented, definitions of knowledge, mental processes and

philosophical terminologies in the shape of dichotomies were introduced like realism/idealism, fact/value

rational/irrational, knowledge/opinion, reason/faith, public/private etc. that pretty much evident in the practical life. Now based on that philosophy we are to think of knowledge as a kind of picture/ mirror of real world. Problem that is faced in this view of knowledge is the contradiction that might happen in any way between our picture of the world and its reality. To avoid this we need a theory of knowledge that would guide us every time we encounter a false picture, to distinguish it from the real picture. Hence continues epistemology is needed to be directed with an open heart to accept the reality behind a concept, while considering truth (in much probability The Truth) to be an entity rather than a concept, present out there in the world to be discovered. The word truth, the way world really is, is pictured or mirrored by our knowledge.

After acquiring/ discovering such knowledge/ truth, a faithful approach is then required to picture it accurately in the mind and to perfectly mirror it in the language without, even a minor addition or subtraction (leaving the whole idea intact), without any prejudice, hindered judgment, self-interest and feelings. Then that knowledge is universal and valid to be called objectively true in every aspect. Not with rude and stubborn prejudice to distinguish a group from the rest and claiming their belief and path to be objectively true

Phillip Kenneson has referred to history in order to remind us that these old paradigms that are based on the “correspondence theory of truth”, is not the only paradigm available. People when perform in-depth epistemological methodology, if come across the doubt regarding old paradigm of objective truth, instead of following the doubt to the root, start doubting the fundamental posture of doubt. Hence their assessment ends up including the trust in the source of their knowledge to improvise their objective truth. But if we carefully observe, the objectivity adopted in that manner is helpful and easy way out of the intense anxiety of taking responsibility of subjectivity. So in that way organize a collective version of objective truth and start trusting it with our whole life. So for that reason people fear their lives won’t matter anymore without their objective truth and most importantly how they will evangelize but still if they get ahead of this concept and try justifying their believes, latter Christians will have decreased magnitude at stake. Because we, as an enlightened human need to realize that truth is independent to whether we believe it or we don’t. But with old concept we claim to make them true ourselves by just trusting them hence not justifying their true existence. Same goes for the picture, people represent for the God, is based on trust but not justification even if it’s the Truth.

Referring to Richard Rorty, Kenneson mentioned what he said about the existence of truth. He said when we say God, World and truth is out there, we need to picture it in such an objectivity that would clearly explain their actual existence instead of their existence or creation by human mental state. Truth is independent of Sentences, created by language, created by human. So there

is nothing wrong with the existence of truth, God and the World but the creation of the description of them. That description could only be true or false. So that is a strong supporting reason for the existence of false objective truth. So if the description is perfectly aligned and fulfilled, socially and communally with the Truth then there is no provision left to question the existence of Objective truth.

Furthermore referring to James Sire a Linguistic Relativist, he said that according to Sire, truth claims are inseparable from language. His work has been influenced from the questions on previous paradigm. He says language is the most powerful of all even the science ceases to exist without it. Everything is questionable and justifiable in terms of linguistics and hence is the key element to spread any religion. We only need a linguistic approach to convince the people to adopt a religious path while the objective truth is inaccessible and remains intact. His emphasize to focus on linguistics to leave no discrepancies to describe a truth or existence. That is a legitimate approach to answer many questions but Kenneson just has disagreement with James Sire on the grounds of Objective truth and in fact Kenneson appreciates the work of Sire as far as linguistic approach is concerned. I think Kenneson is focused towards the eternity of objective truth that directs him to question and criticize in some way human description and linguistics. Moreover Sire doesn’t influence or promote the shift in paradigm. But on the other hand Kenneson’s approach is focused towards the shift to evolve a new era of questions and destroying previous questions, hence hooking our language up to the reality.

After achieving a new status/ paradigm the questions of Objectivity, subjectivity and Relativism will no more be asked even by a Non-Christian. And all left will be the work and exploration of communities and common people. Practicing that would attract people’s attention and they will respond to propagate such work. Objective truth and belief will be firm and forever intact. That would not be just an act or routine to justify belief but a perfect embodiment of my belief.