Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?
 

Well, is there?
Or is reality, God, the universe (or whatever) fluid, based entirely on perception; altering between person to person and simply a product of our subjective perspective?

Re: Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?
 

As a Roman Catholic, I believe in God, the resurrection of Jesus & life everlasting. But I fully understand if others do not have my beliefs. Not especially interested in what others believe, but surely it’s good to believe in something.

Re: Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?
 

The truth is the truth. It's real no matter how you perceive it. So only perception and perspective are subjective. Watch more Jeopardy!

It’s on in 15 minutes. Highlight of my day today, which is sad.

Re: Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?
 

Yes.

Re: Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?
 

No!

Just realized i was about to make a joke but yeah, i'm done joking sorry :(

I'm not sure if I fully understand your question. Or better put, I can't fully wrap my brain around it. Thus I can't give a definite answer.

But I can give my personal truth as my own personal answer:
Nothing last forever.

Re: Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPkkIXMaIug

:D

:cool:

Re: Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?
 

We dont know and maybe we cant know.

How did you get so sage-like, CR. i rep all f that answer.

Yes. And it changes whenever I decide it's now different. :yup:

Re: Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?
 

Of course there is,

Traps are not gay!

Re: Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?
 

Shut up you wannabe philosopher and have some chicks instead:

https://www.purelypoultry.com/images...k-chickens.jpg

Oh, wait...

Re: Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?
 

What about the concept of the collective unconscious

Re: Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?
 

Yeah, there are.
http://stage48.net/wiki/images/thumb...aYumePromo.jpg

God only knows, and he's not telling.

Re: Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?
 

Truth is what the liberal lobby decides nowadays :suspicious:

Re: Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?
 

I was hoping this might turn out to be an insightful & interesting thread. Instead this thread proves intelligent conversation is hard to come by. There's the truth.

Re: Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?
 

What this thread is "about" has already been discussed numerous times.

So?

It's like movies - they keep making the same ones over and over.

And if it's not a remake, reboot, re-envisioning, retread, re-up, rehash, re-visitation, return-to, retcon, retrospective, new take, update, director's cut, extended edition, home-release-version, modernization, prequel, sequel, continuation, franchise, alternate-concurrent-splinter-reality, TV-to-movie, book-to-movie-to-comic-to-movie-to-cartoon-to-movie-to-toys-to-movie-to-video-game-to-movie-to-TV-series-to movie-to-Web-series-to-movie, then it's an idea that's been done before in some way, shape, or form...

...Yet we keep discussing them! ;)

@Captain Steel

Naysayers aside, what says you Capt? Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?

I believe there is... but then I kind of contradict the concept by putting the word "believe" in there. If there is an absolute TRUTH or reality, then "belief" in the concept (mine or anyone else's) has nothing to do with it.

Under the concept of absolute truth, belief is irrelevant.

The next question is: does anyone know if there is absolute truth... or does anyone claiming to know only think (i.e. "believe") they know and are thus only following a dogma of faith (which, under the concept of absolute truth may be correct, partially correct or completely and utterly wrong)? Can anyone actually know?

Re: Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?
 

P.S. The reason I "believe" there may be absolute truth is that science seems to point to an external reality that has certain rules that apply to everyone and everything equally across the board. Things like gravity (although the theories on exactly how it works are arguable)... the fact that it always works and is consistent everywhere is an example of an unalterable constant.

But... metaphysics often claims otherwise.

And the scientific method may only be a means of studying one observable aspect of reality, whereas other aspects may be far more malleable than we realize. When we get into how attention seems to effect things on a quantum level, it begins to point to a universe that might actually be directed by intention!

Attention? Are you referring to the observation effect?

Yes, I believe so - that sub-atomic particles allegedly behave differently when they are observed. Although, I'm not sure how scientists know that if they are not observing the particles that supposedly do not act differently when no one's looking at them! ;)

(Or maybe I'm referring to the Mandela effect!) ;)

Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?

Yes! You would rather talk politics and religion on a movie site.

InfoWars is this direction > https://www.infowars.com./

Site Rules

No Duplicate Threads
If you're new, and want to start a thread, use the search page to see if something on the topic already exists. If it does, post in that thread, rather than starting a new one. You can safely assume that we've covered most of the broader topics by now.

Note: some exceptions may be made if the existing thread is exceptionally old, or a new slant is being put on the topic.

Thread Closed.

Re: Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?
 

After some discussion, we're re-opening this thread.

Its not that they act differently because of the observation, its that when you are trying to measure things on such a small scale you, inevitably, effect what you are trying to observe just through the use of the equipment to observe it. For example, the photons needed to SEE a what you are looking at can change the state of the matter being observed by interacting with it and knocking off electrons or such. Its not an issue when what you are observing is macro phenomenon but on a sub atomic level it can significantly effect the results because of its interaction with the material being studied. But its not about the conscious mind somehow effecting the subatomic material. This phenomenon is true even when they "observing" is done with non human detectors. It still alters the results because of its interference with the material its trying to observe.

Discovery and breaking assumptions is always exciting! I was fascinated by this back in college:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4_0obIwQ_U


As a bonus, there's a slight reference to..... CATS!!!! It just doesn't get much better than that ;)

Re: Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?
 

Feel free to debunk or defend... but I've heard a lot about Random Number Generators (or Random Effect Generators) and their statistical results.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vorRLlsBRmY

Now, if power of intention effects reality (and we all know it does to various observable extents, but here we're reaching beyond the idea of simply wanting something out of your refrigerator, intending to get up and get it, and then doing so) on levels beyond the simple and observable, does this counter the concept of absolute truth?
Or is the power of intention effecting reality PART of a larger absolute truth?
Or, is reality simply and only what you make of it (meaning there is no single, objective, absolute truth)?

I dont know what the collective unconscious is but I have believed in a collective conscious since learning meditation way way back when

Hi Cap. Bit of a quiet weekend, was it? Good to0 see you back to shaking things up.

Thanks, Dani.

The collective unconscious was developed by Carl Jung...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious

An expansion on the idea (which may fall under the idea of an absolute truth) is that we all share or are part of a single larger consciousness and our perception of our conscious individuality is an illusion that we cling to. We are all actually part (even our minds and thoughts) of a single larger mind that is internally and externally linked to our own. We're not the individuals we think we are, but part of a collective that makes up the universe.

The idea of a collective unconscious sounds as believable as astrology. And Jung's definition reminds me of an attempt to create religion out of metaphysics.

Yes.

That doesn't mean there's always a definite right or wrong, though.

No.

That's not very polite, CR. How about posting insightful and intelligent opinions rather than taking a jab at everyone before you in the thread. Tsk Tsk. I can say Tsk Tsk now because I've realised what a petulant little sht I was until I took a good hard look in the mirror.

:)

I prefer the emojis on my android. Just thought I would lob that in for fun.

You've misinterpreted my post. I was NOT taking a jab at everyone. I was complaining about those who posted silly off topic post without answering the question that Captain had asked. Especially this post by ashdoc, which proceeded my post:
I was NOT referring to you or anyone who tried to answer the original question that Captain asked...so there's no need for you to call me names.

I was not calling you names . I was answering the original question. The liberal lobby controls most of the centers of expression---the media tv newspapers, the television and film industry etc . All major publishers also kowtow before the liberal lobby and give prominence to books expounding the liberal view . Reviewers also give good reviews to books and films expounding the liberal view . There is enormous pressure on everyone to confirm......So whatever the liberal lobby wants to be expressed as the truth, it can manipulate and present as the truth.

What names did anyone call you? I didnt notice so I'll go back and have a look. BRB.

Re: Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?
 

Do you mean 'sage-like' that I called you? I didnt realise that was a silly name, and I didnt check but if memory serves me correct you repped me at the time. I'll try harder next time to read your mind and not post such silly names. Apologies for hurting your feels.

Sorry Ash, I didn't mean to say you were calling me names, you did not. I meant to say, there was no need for Dani to call me names. I should have made that post clearer.

Not only do I think the answer is yes, but it seems to me that answering anything else is necessarily self-contradictory.

We can argue about why, but the mere act of arguing presupposes that some measure of truth is obtainable through the act of argumentation.

I'll ask a second time, and please dont make me go for magic number 3

I'll even bold it if you like

Please point out where I called you names. TIA. And before you suggest that I edited to remove names of any sort other than 'sage-like' earlier in the thread,, just incase you were thinking that ofcourse, no I did not. You do this all the time, CR, and I for one wont tolerate you claiming I have done something to hurt your feels when I have not. I simply repeated your words back to you. Is that what hurt your feelings or was it something else?

Now please dont make me have to ask you a third time, as much as I like that number.I certainly would not like that.

Don't play dumb with me, I know your tricks and I know you're smarter than that. I WAS referring to the post below as you damn well know.

BTW, you can have the last word. I am DONE with you. I'm tired of you nipping at my heels, when I have bent over backwards to be nice to you. This is my last post to you.

You dont get off that easily, CR. Please name the names or stop behaving the way you are behaving. It's pretty simple. You dont get to tell me I;m playing dumb when *cough*
that's exactly what you're doing. Are you implying I was calling you a petulant lil sht? DING DING DING please try harder at this. It's not very difficult. I was talking about myself.You dont get to tell posters what's going on in their heads. I'm sorry CR. You seem way behind.

Oh and just as well I love dogs or I might play you for two minutes and cry that you implied I am a bitch with that nipping at the heels comment. Ruff Ruff.

Re: Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?
 

Of course. Some absolute thruths:

1 meter has 100 centimeters
1 ton has 1,000 kg
The imperial measure system is worse than the metric system
Facebook has more users than MoFo
Global warming is happening
Cancer is bad for your health
Adam Sandler's movies are crappy

Re: Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?
 

1 ton is only 907.185 kg. :cool:

I love astrology. And you never did tell us your zodiac sign.

Right. That’s probably why it’s been around so long. :rolleyes:

Well, he meant tonne.

Slavery has existed for thousands of years :D Clearly, better than freedom which is historically recent!

Re: Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?
 

I've never known Guap to not say what he means.

What has that to do with weights & measures?

It has to do with the idea that being around a long time speaks to something's value.

Like Mark said:907.185!

Agreed :cool:

Necessarily, but no one will ever know it.

Re: Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?
 

Is morality relative?

Re: Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?
 

Well, I worships Cthulhu .... just to be on the safe side :yup:

Re: Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?
 

Wasn't sure where to put this train of thought - so this old thread seemed random enough yet close enough in subject matter to express some thoughts about reality and changing it if such a thing were possible...

Been thinking about time lately... and time travel.

We often wonder: what if we had it to do all over again?

And I was thinking about various scenarios.

If you were given the chance to live your life over again - say starting at early childhood - would you?
I was thinking, if that was the choice - not just popping in at one point in time for a day or so then returning to the present, but having to relive the whole thing - I definitely would NOT do it.

Granted, there'd be plenty of opportunities to correct mistakes, do things differently, maybe make for a better adulthood with the benefit of inerrant foresight, but the whole idea of living it all out again in "real time" just seems unbearable.

Now, if the option existed, as mentioned earlier, of being able to go back to key moments just for a short while and relive them or make corrections, then return to the present - that seems much more palatable.

But there would be the potential for danger or benefits... if you made changes in the past (like say stand up to a bully instead of backing down, or asking someone out who you were too scared to, or stopping someone from making a fatal mistake you didn't know would happen when it occurred in your past)... then you might not recognize your present when you returned.

Your present might be pretty much the same, similar or very very different. Things might be much better or much worse - or a mixture of the two. Even correcting mistakes in the past might end up causing a chain reaction of disaster in your present... OR... may have been the key to a live of health, wealth, love, success and any of the things you wish you had, but have seemed to elude you!

Understanding all that... if given the chance to go back and relive events or correct your mistakes & erase your regrets - would you take the chance knowing that even the most seemingly positive changes you could make might alter your present in ways you could not foresee?

Intriguing post @Captain Steel

I don't usually think about changing things in the past. Like you said, it could seriously screw up one's present day life...or even screw up other people's lives. Even strangers who one never met and never interacted with could end up in a totally different situation. It's quite mind boggling. But I DO think about the different avenues life could've taken if different decisions were made. Perhaps in a quantum universe every possible outcome to our lives has taken place in other parallel universes. Hmm, I think I've watched too much Star Trek.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcDjnYxzfss

Not to go off on yet another ST tangent - but wasn't there an episode where there were two Rikers (yes, I know there were several)... but I think it was one where a copy of him was created by the transporter (if memory serves correctly) and his copy didn't have all the experience of the current Riker?

Unlike the episode of TOS where Kirk was split by the transporter and reconstituted by the end of the episode, making him whole once more... Riker wasn't "split" in two halves, but copied (more like cloned), but by the end of the episode, there were two complete Rikers and the copy was allowed to go on with a completely separate life?

That was one of my favorite episodes. It was an interesting study of how different life experiences could affect a person in such different ways. The Riker who was duplicated by the transporter and ended up abandoned on an uninhabited planet for a number of years became use to being his own boss, improvising instead of follow the book and had a problem with authority. All quite the opposite of the Riker who made it back to his ship and that later joined the Enterprise as the 1st officer. Not surprisingly Deanna Troy fell back in love with the more roguish, undisciplined Riker, who in the end made a lot of the same decisions the other Riker did. The other Riker later made an appearance on Deep Space Nine and his story arch is one that ST fans feel is still unresolved.

It's interesting to think about, but I wouldn't go back. I believe that everything happens for a reason. We might not always know what that reason is, but there is a reason.

Is there really such a thing as "too much Star Trek"? :skeptical:

Re: Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?
 

If I could time travel I would hope that it is a la About Time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJwofnuvtIc

You answered one of my questions before I asked it, Rules - I always wondered if the Riker copy ever showed up again. (It seemed like an awful big matzo ball to leave hanging out there!)

Seemed like incidents like this (transporters creating copies of people) might call into question transporter ethics in the 25th century (not to mention all that came before it - people trapped in a transporter beam - ala Enterprise, people getting split into halves ala TOS, horrifying transporter malfunctions ala ST-TMP, etc.)

Another philosophical conundrum.

"If I could travel in time some time, I'd travel to the end of all of mankind!"

Josh Groban sings Casey...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cqtqxGigAQ

Who's to say we don't? Perhaps in an alternate universe we aren't even born yet. And maybe there's something to reincarnation.

But if I had the conscious chance, you bet I'd start again and live it the exact same way. Had more good times than bad.

My issue with that is that an alternate universe me is not me. I speculate they're experiencing things for the first & only time as I did. (Although I often fantasize about switching places with an alternate universe me, and going to a reality where certain key points in the past had been different and resulted in a far different present.)

And with reincarnation (which may indeed be real), if it is real, we don't seem to retain any memories (or at least many memories... although I've always had a strange affinity for swing music!). ;)

I'd love to relive good times - or just see how things were again - but if it were a permanent thing where I'd have to go 50 some years to get back to where I left from... then I think the novelty would wear off and I'd start to feel imprisoned in time (a bit like Bill Murray in Groundhog day - but stretched out over a longer period).

I'd probably become obsessed with preventing bad things from happening to myself & others. But it would be kind of impossible to anticipate certain events - who remembers the exact date or time something happened in school?

Also - would you warn people of 9/11 before it happened?
If you did, people would probably just ignore you - then (since you probably would not be unable to stop it in any way) after it happened, the FBI would realize you had called them with all this information no one else could possibly know and arrest you as a terrorist co-conspirator!

Re: Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?
 

Everything you said there Captain in your last post, I believe to be true. If one could go back and relive their live with forehand knowledge, it would be a Twilight Zone type hell. I'm talking Rod Sterling not the fluffy kiddie movies.

Re: Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?
 

Yes. My film taste.

Heh, heh. Yeah, "going back" is wild enough. But going back, and having knowledge of the future, either with or without the ability to change your actions or events in general gets crazy real quick. I ain't knockin' it though...:D

Revisiting this post from a while back...

On an episode of Cosmos (the newer series hosted by Neil DeGrasse Tyson - I think maybe in season 2), Neil says something astounding...

Hard to sum up here, but it was something to the extent that particles millions of lightyears apart, that could have no possible physical connection to each other being so far apart, will behave in a way where if one changes its behavior, then the same kind of particle millions of lightyears away will simultaneously & instantaneously change its behavior in the same way.

The thing I don't remember is an explanation how they could know this or even claim to know this - are they even able to see microscopic particles millions of lightyears away and observe how they behave?

Found a video on YouTube that kind of goes into something similar (they call it "quantum entanglement") - talk about it begins at the 6:19 mark in the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDxzZHSBhw0

Neil deGrasse Tyson rags on philosophy. I take everything he says with a grain of salt and approach it with twice the skepticism.

Science has gone a little nutty of late. Stretching measurements as absolutes and wasting time testing all sorts of farfetched stuff just because “well, we haven’t tested it so it’s still possible”.

I'm thinking this idea must be theoretical...theoretical anything is possible;)

Not exactly,

I'm sure you think germs exist, but germs, too, are a theory. Yet we can prove and measure such "theories" within a great deal of accuracy. "Theory" doesn't imply a wild guess at something, it's a little more educated than that. It's something that can be "tested" and "proved" to within a decent and consistent margin.

Subjective nature behooves objective nature.

Just as subjectives are law our universe, (which as far as we know is relatively dichotomous), so too would it's inverse.

The problem becomes, (and perhaps at the arrival of such a question), is not exactly the "is" of the question, but the "what."

"Is" there objective truth? Yes. Objectively speaking there has to be...

But "what" objective truth is there? And now down the age-old philosophical rabbit-hole we go.

Anyway, it is "objectively" 6:31 in the am where I live, (maybe?) and "subjectively" I'm wondering if I need some coffee. ;)

Adieu.

EDIT:

Oh, and on the subject of "objectives."

"Objectively" Carl Sagan was the better host of Cosmos.

Entanglement (quantum entanglement) has been verified.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

Evidently scientists can observe it, but can't explain it.

Eventually scientists will look at Einstein and Schrodinger in the same way that we now look at Sir Isaac Newton and his falling apple demonstrating gravity in 1665. There is likely infinitely more to know than we already know.

I'd sure like to know how those alien spacecraft have been able to get here from distant galaxies...:)

Re: Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?
 

I am sure there is.

Mankind is just not able/allowed to dig behind it, and by "not allowed" i mean the laws of (quantum)physics, not a "god" or "higher being".

That we are unable to predict the position of a neutron, could easily be due to the fact, that we just aren´t able (not allowed) to predict it, yet it doesn´t necessarily mean that the path of a neutron isn´t predestined.

Concerning truth, the problem might be seeking it, trying to grasp it, attain it, the sound of rain does not need translation, so everything else. How many of you have looked at a mountain, and for ten seconds, one minutes, two minutes, there was nothing but the mountain. That mountain absorbed the you. There was no you looking at that mountain, there were no definitions, nothing, just the mountain, there was the truth of that mountain, afterward, the memory of the incident, if you try to report it back, truth is lost instantly. So now, what do we do with it? Let's see what Bodhidharma had to say:

"(...) They fix their minds on the sublime and let their bodies change with the seasons. All phenomena are empty. They contain nothing worth desiring. Calamity forever alternates with Prosperity. To dwell in the three realms is to dwell in a burning house. To have a body is to suffer. Does anyone with a body know peace? Those who understand this detach themselves from all that exists and stop imagining or seeking anything. The sutras say, “To seek is to suffer. To seek nothing is bliss.” When you seek nothing, you’re on the Path."

Life lives.

Re: Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?
 

Life is F***ked up. I don't how objective that is but we can never really remove ourselves from any sort of "truth," it's all just observations but, i think, "life is F***ked up" is pretty good -- sorry i can't put it more eloquently but it just wouldn't have the same "oomph" otherwise.


Also i think what Carlin talks about here is pretty universal and can apply to everyone.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXRA-RgADeg

Re: Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?
 

This is kind of topical right now because there's more and more discussion about how universities (especially in the U.S.) are creating an expansive ideological shift away from the concept of objective truth (that used to be brought to us through mediums such as science) toward a concept that objective truth is how you subjectively feel about yourself or anything else.

As much as I believe in and advocate things like a positive mental attitude and positive affirmations or "thinking from the end" or fake it till you make it, (and while these mental disciplines may be a critical part of personal "success") they can only be applied so far within the reality of the objective world with an expectation of efficacy.

So, while I believe in the power of positive thinking, I am still a pragmatist who knows that directed thoughts alone will not necessarily overcome, cure, reverse or prevent every negative situation or circumstance that life can throw at you or those around you. (Positive thinking may help make you better at coping with life's difficulties, but thoughts & feelings alone will not bring about such things as a cure for terminal diseases that span humanity.)

When it comes to objective truth, this feelings over facts philosophy we see many young people adopting seems kind of dangerous because youth in universities are rejecting established scientific facts in exchange for things like cultural agendas, fads and "social contagions".

The only truth is the one that’s out there. I hear they made a show about it.

What will happen when the truth that is out there comes here?
And more than half our population can't understand or accept it because it doesn't fit with the narrative they've been conditioned to believe?

I am not God.


That is all.

I’d say that’d be a good time for a reboot. Then it’d be back out there.

Q: Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?

A: We all feed on death.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u89P_brjLF8

I believe that there is absolute truth, but most of what we perceive misleads us, and as such we can use logic to define the very basics while our minds aren't up to understanding the whole. But I love to ponder - a very pleasurable activity, pondering absolute truth. I usually do it on bus trips or on the toilet.

Elaborate.

Re: Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?
 

The sun doesnt rise because the world turns.

Re: Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?
 

When you're right, you're right. When you've won, you've won. Winning doesn't make you right. Being right doesn't mean you've won.

dangit.
i was about to quote the OP with this reply but got distracted reading the first few posts.

(grrrr)

The mere act of justification/argument presupposes an obtainable truth in the first place, so the moment someone asks me to demonstrate the premise, I no longer need to.

This is a cop-out, though, isn't it?

What I mean is that the mere act of saying there's an objective truth isn't enough proof that this is the case. For example, if I said that God exists, this wouldn't be enough because the burden of proof is on those who make such claims. I could say that I believe God exists, but if I wanted to claim that God exists for sure, I better have a good argument.

It's not that saying there's an objective truth makes it so. It's that asking for evidence for that claim assumes it is.

It assumes so but just for the sake of the argument.

Re: Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?
 

"For the sake of argument" is exactly what I'm referring to. Either there is no truth, and therefore argument has no force or purpose, or there is, in which case the skepticism is self-contradictory.

This is not analogous to any other claim, because it's about the process used to evaluate claims in the first place. It's inherently nonsensical to employ rationality to undermine rationality. Reason is axiomatic.

So either there is objective truth or there is not and both are axiomatic?

Sort of, but the salient point is that they're not just two warring axioms of equal validity. Claiming objective truth exists is axiomatic because reason itself is axiomatic. It is self-justifying and self-evident. Claiming objective truth doesn't exist is inherently self-contradictory, because it's using reason to undermine the existence of reason.