Truth's Relation to 'The Good'

For a few months now I've been casually writing short philosophy 'texts' in a style mimicking Epictetus' Discourses - I'm up to about 84 A5 pages at the minute, might do something with it but probably not. Anyway I thought I'd post this snippet because I quite like it, definitely could do with more editing to increase clarity, but hopefully it's not too incoherent lmao

Truth is the second-in-command consigliere to support the leadership of the Good. For the Good’s decision is absolute and final, with Truth having to bow down gracefully in response. And that Truth is a servant to the Good, whose function is directed solely towards advising the Good’s decision making, for it is not correct for Truth to be a master for its own end as many tend to claim - Truth has no value in itself. And yet the Good is almost certain to go astray if it does not take heed of Truth’s consultancy. In fact the Good must listen carefully to every word that the Truth speaks, even when deciding to deviate from its advice. For any Good who’s ego soars so high as to claim to rule alone without Truth will certainly fall into ruin.

Importantly Truth functions as the mediator between the Good and all its underlings. The Good must be treated as absolute or else its dictatorial authority may be threatened. Whilst valued soldiers such as Freedom and Equality may be essential for a golden age of morality, they simultaneously must not forget their subservient position of being only a single facet of the Good. And yet if the Good disregards their views it will be unaware of their insights, and similarly fall into ruin. Hence behind closed doors as to not inspire doubt in the mind of the troops, Truth with its clarity of vision will raise such facts up to the Good for reconsideration.

For the Good in some sense must essentially be biased against what is evil, it will not do for its idealism to have a passive reception to sin and degeneracy, as a merely factual account of actions as objective descriptions would have it. And yet for this to be the case the Good necessarily must impair its vision somewhat, for how can you hate evil whilst giving the devil his due? Truth to act as a successful consigliere must then see all clearly, but as a result Truth must be barred from holding a personal opinion.

Therefore whilst the Good in real time must reject its subordinates and move on to the next decision, Truth must find the facts that the Good missed or misused, and report them in a time of peace to be reflected upon. For the Good - as far as it is good - cannot make mistakes, but merely fail to sufficiently address all in its considerations. Truth works through the eyes of those subservient to itself rather than being omniscient itself, it views through the soldiers. Truth therefore wishes to know two things: how to strip reports of their bias, but also to understand through this bias the nature and qualities of the subservient themselves. It is useful to note then that whilst Truth attempts to construct objectivity from subjectivity, this isn’t achieved by disregarding the subjectivity of its sources, but crafting objectivity by keeping a keen eye on subjectivity.

Of course within humans these functions are in actuality many distinct areas of the brain which are deeply interconnected and interdependent. We cannot segregate Truth or Good, nor Freedom or Equality, into individual characters. ‘Good’ or ‘Truth’ themselves are pure idealistic entities, it should be self-evident that there is no absolute ‘Good’ system in our minds which is always correct. Additionally, how the brain physically processes through these ‘character interactions’ itself is utterly unclear, yet certainly cannot be neatly divided into such characters. This itself renders this lively metaphor somewhat peculiar; for whilst to function it must be accepted that we can discuss moral processes as if they are idealistic characters, and yet it cannot be meaningfully related to reality unless they are seen as fallible and non-idealistic. And yet this metaphor captures the abstract pragmatic essence of good and truth in the clearest way I can articulate

With such considerations addressed, we can extend the metaphor further by addressing the more real elements, which whilst would somewhat break the previous explanations if addressed as a logically coherent whole with the meanings that were unpacked prior, it functions better if viewed with the previous section in mind. There are occasions where the Good is overthrown from power: which equally could be the Good desecrating the goodness from itself, or a coup set out by a subordinate to steal power. Sometimes, especially in the case of the former, a change of leadership is what is needed. This is when the unexpected striking of tragedy shocks oneself out of the delusion which led them there in the first place. It is the bolt of lightning which enlightened Lenin after the Kronstadt rebellion, it’s the betrayal of that close friend who everyone warned you was trouble, it’s whatever innocuous white lie came back with a vengeance - as a bulky demon with great fangs. When in such instances the processes and beliefs one understands as ‘The Good’ blow up so spectacularly that their faultiness is beyond denial; when Truth grapples Good and drags it straight down into the dirt, where a change of leadership becomes inevitable when it’s painfully obvious the previous boss has lost touch with reality.

Although there is no guarantee that such revolutions should be welcomed, contrarily in most cases it shouldn’t be. For experience and patience as a rule of thumb allows a wider-grounded understanding, for it has lived longer to listen to a wise Truth’s guidance. Whereas younger revolutionaries are stereotypically overcome by zeal; which whilst fantastic if this happens to be correctly aligned, is tragic when their passionate blindness drives them head-on into suffering. But similarly incumbency is no guarantee of being properly oriented, since the Good can be shocked or degraded into immorality. The first notion is somewhat similar to the coup, except that rather than being fully replaced, the Good emphasises or cuts off parts of those subservient to itself and disrupts its own balance. This is when tragedy strikes; and yet is misinterpreted as being a result of Good’s diminution then primarily caused by external accidents.

Now in almost all such catastrophe’s one could have been better prepared for such a situation. The error comes from overexaggerating the importance of the one possibility merely because it became manifest, rather than within the appropriate light of its detectability within the infinite set of potentials. For whilst it's a certainty that one accidental potential must become manifest, considering one particular must come into being if there is to be the future, this effectively guarantees a borderline impossibility must become the case - for someone must always win the lottery. Either Truth becomes misguided for it orients its reason around this or that fact, and interprets everything around actuality. But similarly often the Good in emotional panic cuts off more than it should. This is the temptation which faces Job when he comes under Satan's suffering, that of abandoning his faith, since immense suffering despite absolute godliness would threaten one into questioning if their ideals are wrong.

But it need not be as radical, sometimes such change is a slow corruption which develops gradually. For all present must have at one time or another set out to change a habit they know they should change, starting out successfully with great vigour and dedication for it’s shiny and new, only to forget it a week later. Or contrarily that one for whichever reason decides to lapse on a virtuous characteristic for some time, and fails to establish it afterwards. And if as described what we understand as Good itself is in constant fluctuation, it should be of little surprise that this won't always be change aimed in a positive direction. For in our decision making we are simultaneously judging both reality and our criteria, certainty is nowhere to be found. And therefore the risk of going wrong must eternally remain.

I can hear you sneering with your chastisements as the back, which I imagine must be about the fact I haven’t assented to any stable moral position. That not only have I chastised the potential of a stable morality, but knocked down the ladder of reason which allows us to reach and negotiable morality, all whilst asserting the moral as absolute and the guiding start for everything else - what utter confusion! And yet what would you expect of me? To solve rationally all current debates, but also all future debates with a few lines of reason? When has simplicity ever been capable of solving the deeply complex meaningfully? If you wish for a simple line of reasoning, then have it! The core of morality is to always look towards realities consequences, and to act to ensure they benefit humanity, all is to be found within this little rule.

- Benjamin Steer

Contact at: steer432@gmail.com