Reason, Belief, and Ultimate Truth

Abstract

A core question of the Carroll Honors Program is defining the search for knowledge and its common end goal; complete knowledge, or “Ultimate Truth.” The program has charted the works of many philosophers, and those who address Ultimate Truth consistently reach very different conclusions about its nature. This much is obvious, but it is less clear what causes these differences. It is often difficult or impossible to find outright errors in the logical processes of these works, certainly not enough to account for the vastness of afore mentioned discrepancies. Upon further inspection, the source of the discrepancy seems to be this: that the logical ladders start with differing assumptions or observations about the nature of humans and the world. If this is true, then it is impossible to separate logic from experience and observations and also impossible to grasp Ultimate Truth with logic alone. Merleau-Ponty expresses a similar sentiment in his World of Perception, arguing that our perception of the world is just as important as sound science in form our understanding of the world. He argues further that this understanding is in fact an approximation, made more or less complete by the breadth or lack thereof of our perception. Immanuel Kant recognizes this in his Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason, arguing for a view of good and evil that also admits an element of spontaneity to human nature. This presentation will explore and synthesize these authors’ views on Ultimate Truth.