It has been over a year since these posts started and Pilate may well laugh in their face with his famous: Qui est veritas? Are we any closer to it? Do we recognize it? Is it problem-solving, life-changing, or disappointing? Truth may set one free, only to be entrapped in some other snare of conundrums and trials.
Yet the human mind loves to be challenged and the process of enlightenment for a finite being is never complete so long as there is a wider universe of puzzles and enigmas. As humans, we cling to certainties wherever we find them. But in our heart of hearts, we love the mysteries, the puzzles, the challenges that help us grow in wisdom and power.
The posts have always demonstrated a part of the truth or a category of truth or the direction to turn in order to grasp at the truth. It has been firm in its objective premises and minimized the flaws of faulty argumentation that may be used to arrive at truth. It is sure of itself, perhaps more than the author. Can a subjective being author objective truths? Does the subjective being recognize the objective truth when it stumbles upon it?
In the age of the specialization of subjects, with all the accompanying -ologies of dissective categorization, it is easy to forget the big picture when it comes to truth. However, such specialization may indication that we have better understood the multi-faceted nature of truth.
Kant and Mises have countless times brought up the a priori fact that our brains categorize and rationalize information in a particular way. Such categorization of the mind is not pure random evolution, but the manner in which humans are able to perceive the real world. One cannot be anti-foundationalist when the whole of scientific inquiry and philosophy of values must make progress in the realm of knowledge. There is a reality; whether it is malleable or rigid is up to the philosophers to debate
When the relativists critique such foundations in the rational sciences, saying that the models and theories do not account for the irrational, counterrational, or superrational elements of human action, behaviour, psychology, etc., the falsity of such statements is rendered by virtue of assuming that such models do not already include such calculations. Indeed, such models presuppose humans operating at the optimum level of their biological, mental, etc capacities are able to do and other sciences/philosophies do represent models that factor in human irrationality. To suggest that such optimum models are flawed because they do not account for human irrationality is absurd. The critique may be rendered and then dismissed, but never dwelt on so much as it is today.
Truth was never unattainable insofar as the human rational mind is there to perceive and know it. We should never overthink it.