Login

 

theXblog

My Definition of Truthism as a philosophy

the spiritual goal of learning the truth, as in "what actually is"



“Only once you accept the theoretical possibility of having been wrong or mistaken, you acquire the very realistic ability of being right.”

Sebastyne

Truthism as a philosophy should describe a pursuit to discover the actual truth as opposed to what is generally been taught as the truth as based on the best knowledge of the time. Any truth seeker should consider and entertain ALL possible explanations to a phenomenon, discounting nothing without consideration, until proven that there is another, a better explanation that actually explains the phenomena more reliably than the previous assumption. A Truthist should always aim for the more accurate description of reality, as scientific knowledge, societal experience, and personal experiences increase and give more information about what is real.

A truthist can admit to having a personal bias towards one explanation or another, or that they hold an attitude that is biassed towards one or the other explanation, because that would be stating the truth, if that’s true, but a truthist should not tell others to not believe something they, themselves have difficulty understanding, let alone tell them to believe something that they insist is real. A truthist should endeavor to hold an open mind, to be a true free thinker, and to NOT attempt to dictate to others on how or what to think, but rather offer ideas on how to think.

I am personally a truthist who teaches my own philosophy called the Free Spirit Theory, that is my own work based on the principle that two truths cannot contradict each other in this Universe, if one is true, the other one cannot be, or both require further contemplation. Another truthist doesn’t necessarily mean they believe in my theory, but they are more likely to have their own studies under works. Two truthists should consider each other allies and co-workers rather than enemies – even when they disagree on what they consider to be the most likely explanation to a phenomenon.

“Be humble enough to know you make mistakes, 
and vain enough to spot them before anyone else catches you of having made them,
that is how you achieve greatness.”
Sebastyne

What is “a truth”?

The definition of the truth is what is actual, real, consistent with reality (to the best of one’s ability to describe what is real). The “truth” is not necessarily what a teacher has told a person because not all teachings are actually consistent with reality. For instance, worldwide, it’s been taught to students that the tongue has certain areas that taste a different taste, but this actually was proven untrue, therefore what was taught was not true, and the truth always was that the tongue’s taste areas were a little more complicated than what was taught. The teacher wasn’t lying, but also they weren’t telling the truth, they simply didn’t know that the tongue worked differently than what science had assumed. The truth is also not the student’s answer who perfectly repeated what they were taught by their teacher, who had given them an answer that was untrue, although the student’s answer was 100% correct in comparison to what they were taught.

Similarly, the assumption that the Earth is flat was taught as the truth once, by the church, the science, and common thinkers alike, because it looks flat. The truth was that the Earth was never flat at all, but roundish – the truth is that the Earth, naturally, isn’t a perfect sphere, but round enough to be given that inaccurate (untrue) description.

What truth is not, thus, is a set of beliefs that are taught to be memorized and repeated as they are, but truth is the study of these teachings and the consideration and continued testing of teachings against our reality, that also contains the unseen. (Without experience of the unseen – other than your own thoughts – can make you think the non-tangible is not real, but we all know through quantum physics alone, that this Universe contains a lot of things that are unseen; and most likely, also something is generally called “the immortal soul”.)

Truthism as a philosophy should encourage true free thinking

A truthist should consider for themselves how they define the truth, how they measure the value of proof, and how they will want to construct their own world view. As a general rule, one should emphasize the idea of not discounting any still possible explanation and thriving towards THE TRUTH rather than a partial explanation that sounds scientific or nice. The goal of truthism should be to discover, explain, and log any findings that will support AN ACCURATE world view, one aligned with reality, avoiding all preconceptions and external influence akin to dogmatic world view. Independent thinking should be encouraged.

Dogma is a set of beliefs or philosophy that a true believer should not contradict, therefore dogma should be avoided, and particularly the truth and dogma should never be considered one and the same thing, although it is a common misconception about “the truth”. A God that doesn’t stand the test of truth should never be considered a god without redefining the word. Is “god” real? Depends on what the word “god” means and refers to, doesn’t it? Then, does this entity fulfill the description of “a god” the way you just defined the word or the way another philosophy or religion defined the word? If not, what is the closest thing to the definition of the word “god”?

“Put great effort into being correct and forget about winning an argument.”
Sebastyne

Truthism is related to new age and free thinking

New age is a philosophy that is essentially the same as truthism by its very basic idea, however, during the years after it’s inception, new age gurus have turned it into a bit of a mockery of itself by essentially accepting ANY explanation at all, often even contradicting explanations simultaneously into the same world view, for as long as it is spiritual in nature. Criticism MUST be applied when one is attempting to discover the truth rather than further ways of fooling oneself.

The philosophy of Free Thinking (science) goes the opposite direction. Again, the basic philosophy is the same, but it rejects ALL explanations that are spiritual in nature categorically, and a free thinker is not permitted to consider the existence or nature of God, for instance, because that would go against the dogmatised idea that God or spirit aren’t real.

Both approaches are wrong; to accept any and all spiritual explanations and ideas simultaneously even when they are in clear contradiction with each other, patching them up with lazy “donkey bridges” as Finns would call them, such as “God works in mysterious ways” that maybe, but that should not be the end of it. Why does God work in mysterious ways? Is that true? Is it a mystery because this doesn’t make sense because it is not true, or there is another explanation to it…? I focus on spiritual and psychological truths myself, and yes, there is such a thing as a spiritual truth. What it is is another question. Which parts of spiritual beliefs that we hold are true, either partly or wholly, and which parts are misinterpretations, misrepresentations, or otherwise untruths is for a truthist philosopher to figure out. Rejection of ALL spirituality based on some untruths in one particular religion is as smart as rejecting all science based on the inaccuracies of craniology. Just as science, spiritual truths can be discounted based on this particular idea turning out to be false, rather than it being attached to the entire concept of science or spirituality.

All arguments will end once everyone arrives to the correct answer of what is real

The assumption is that once everyone, from dozens of different perspectives, have managed to arrive to the truth, all arguments over what is true can draw to a close because that time we will all simply be satisfied that we all agree upon the natural laws and circumstances that affect us all. (Note that such thing as paranormal cannot exist by definition, but what is now described as paranormal are, most likely, at least partly true, and therefore, natural, and, as a consequence, true.)

For instance: “I sense ghosts” is an approximate truth. What is the remaining questions are: “what are ghosts, are they truly dead people or animals?” “Are you truly sensing ghosts or is there another explanation?” and “Is it possible that some ghosts are not really the presence of a dead person or animal or other previously physical thing, but something else, and if so, what?” The truth can always be clarified on, be made more accurate, and given more and more precise descriptions, until each individual person’s curiosity has been satisfied.

There. Start anywhere, but think for yourself. (Blank slate recommended.)