Existential Crisis; need help

I refer you to the writings of Dr. Hubert Benoit.

However, following on from my reasoning about being unable to go from the subjective to the objective I do see a way out of the bleak, desolate indifference/emptiness that said reasoning leaves you with (I say bleak because it isn’t the best to know that you will never know the truth).

These reasonings do not necessarily lead one to a conclusion of bleak desolate indifference and emptiness. This conclusion is purely subjective as well. One can just as well take these observations and conclude promise, encouragement, cheerfulness and fulfillment.

Thank you for your constructive criticism. I agree to an extent with this. If you are in the subjective and looking for objective truth and your reasoning leads you to the conclusion that there is no way to get you there then you could say subjectively that that is a negative thing or a positive thing, or just a thing.

Regardless, I think I made the mistake of making my writing ambiguous by combining [the standard reaction among people when they see little hope towards achieving one of their goals] AND [talking about objective truth] if that make any sense to you.

thanks, ill take a look and probably get back to you

You make another assumption about "the standard reaction" among people when they see little hope towards achieving one of their goals such as finding objective truth. There is no standard reaction. Many people realize the futility of this goal and move on.

I see the problem here; written English is not my strong suit and by "standard reaction" I did not mean everyone reacts in the same way. I am sure many do come to think that finding objective truth is futile, however at the moment at least I do not think it is completely futile.

However, for the most part, the contention over whether I made an assumption or not is irrelevant to my original line of reasoning, which to remind you I have summarised here:

(•truth is important because without it you have nothing of value

•One starts in the subjective and wants to get to the objective truth of reality

•There is no way to get to the objective because any information that could get you there must first be filtered through your own subjective lenses and you have no way of verifying it

•the only way out of my proposed conclusion (that I can think of) is to say: the information that got you to that line of reasoning in the first place could have been inaccurate/misinterpreted, for example by being filtered through a subjective lens.

•hence, reality is a potential illusion and you will (probably) never know the objective truth of reality.)

To what extent do you agree/disagree with this reasoning?

Hi, I have briefly read the writings you recommended and I disagree with them on this point:

"When the abstract self rides high and the animal self low, the idealist comes into being. He has to squelch the animal side of himself, because admitting its existence implies the existence of the not-self, and the abstract self knows that a confrontation with the not-self cannot be won. Therefore he lives with his head in the clouds."

I do not think that the 'idealist' can definitively say a confrontation with the non-self cannot be won. There is a possibility of 'victory' if you will, and that is all you need to star the path on the journey of the truth seeker.

Lets start with this:



One cannot find an objective truth in reality. only in the facts of what we can see, smell, hear, feel and taste. You and I can both look at a red circle and we can see the truth that it is red and that it is a circle. We can measure it's width and thickness and wavelength of te light reflected giving it it's appearance. These are measurable, objective truths. "I am a good person." Completely subjective.

There is no objective truth of reality because it cannot be measured. The meaning in our lives, which most wish to find, is strictly subjective. The meaning in my life may not be the same as yours. I do not believe this to be "wrong", merely different.

Does a tree make noise when it falls in a forest? Yes. Of course, that is merely my opinion.

There is a contradiction in saying that "there is no way to get to the objective because any information that could get you there must first be filtered through your own subjective lenses and you have no way of verifying it," and coming to the conclusion that "and you will (probably) never know the objective truth of reality." Either there is no way with no probability, or there is a way with a or some probability.

What we have, in regard the the subjective nature of the truth that we can obtain, is consensus as to the truth of things, and consensus as to its usefullness.

Truth goes beyond the power of human creation because humans cannot make anything true that isn't true beyond their control.


I wouldn't say you are 'born into a paradigm' but that various paradigms are embedded within cultural artifacts you encounter and internalize throughout your socialization.


That's not how it works. 2+2=4 is true because you can count first to two, then two steps further to four, and realize that the second two counts you added to the first two counts produced the four you would get to if you started counting at one and continued until four.

That realization of truth is different from the realization that 'two' and '2' are different symbols expressing the same number. There is no truth in using 'two,' '2,' 'dos,' or any other specific word or symbol to denote a set of two units. Symbolic representations are culturally relative. What is not culturally relative are the truths that can be realized/understood by analyzing things using any symbolic system, within any paradigm.

So, for example, if you are operating within an aesthetic paradigm where beauty is deemed equal to goodness and ugliness equal to evil; then it becomes possible to experience as 'truth' the realization that something ugly is actually beautiful or vice versa, and by doing so you experience a revelation of true or false beauty/ugliness, even while the aesthetic paradigm in itself can be deemed false insofar as beauty can conceal moral evil and ugliness can distract from moral virtue, for example.

These awarenesses of truth and falsity within various languages/cultures and paradigms can be true even while simultaneously containing residues and seeds of other, conflicting, truths and falsities. In short, truth and falsity is mixed up in various ways, just as virtue and vice, good and evil, etc. are mixed at various levels of the creation/universe.


Yes, truth and falsity are very complex and the more the complexity becomes apparent to you, the more disappointing it is to see that things you once took for granted as legitimate are superficial illusions. Take solace, however, in the fact that your growing awareness of these complexities and depths of meaning in existence are an artifact of your growing capacity to see things as they really are. I have read that St. Paul considered himself a tremendous sinner as he progressed in his own confessions; and of course we can see that it was his process of sanctification/cleansing that led him to this enhanced awareness of sin, and thus his own virtue was growing proportionally with his perception of his own sin and sin more generally.


You know the truth every time you know it, however small. 2+2=4 is like a single molecule of truth. It is so minute and barely relevant, yet it is a reminder that everyone who passed 1st grade math has the capacity to grasp truth at the level of simple arithmetic at least. The path we take in seeking further truth depends on many factors, but the Bible is correct when it says, "seek and ye shall find."


No, don't "make of your environment what you will." Devote yourself to the search for truth and submit to what is revealed to you. Don't assume things are true that aren't, except tentatively, because without tentative acceptance, you would never dare take a single step in any direction.

"Reality" is neither a total illusion nor is it true as a whole; because it is a mixture of illusions and actualities. Every lie is made up of words with true meanings. Every disguise is made of real cloth. Illusion is seduction of the mind into untruth by tricking its nose for truth. Lies are ammunition against truth-seeking by the forces that seek to escape truth rather than find it.


I'm not sure if that's legally valid. It may be that once you submit text to an internet forum, you convey the rights to the forum. I may be wrong about that, though.