1
Name: Henry D. Mauser
Grade: 10th grade
School: Highlands Latin School
Bio:As a sophomore in high school, I am attending Highlands Latin School, a small classical school in Carmel, Indiana. Besides enjoying access to normal classes such as chemistry or Algebra or History, I also am privileged to be able to be instructed in the classical languages of Latin and Greek, which I constantly appreciate. I greatly enjoy reading, whether it be certain selections of classical or modern literature, and I love playing or watching sports, as well as engaging in nearly any outdoor activity like hiking or camping or fishing. Alongside of school I participate in my school’s debate team, and have attended various state high school debate tournaments along with the rest of my team. In the future, college is a goal. But for now my junior and senior year await.
Contact Information:
Phone number: 317-606-0069
Email:
A Light to Reflect by
Scientists discover the mechanics of the universe, adventurers experience its wonders and mysteries, authors and poets seek to create, embellish, and recreate that which both scientists and adventurers explore; yeta certain category remains unique – that of philosophers. Philosophers investigate another branch of reality, the force behind physical reality. They abandon the beaten path of sensible, material endeavors to plunge into the murky depths of metaphysics, armed only with the weapon of thought and common experience. They enter a quest to find the truth, but ironically, the only method of discovering any truth is truth itself. The only way a person can know anything is by knowing something else, a truth essential to this further understanding. Every result must proceed from a cause, and every truth must proceed from another truth. Such is the basis of all logic, both inductive and deductive, and the only way in which truth, and what is true, can be discovered.
Here, skepticism gains a foothold. Rather than appealing to any innate truth, or accepted truth, the skeptic denies it, therefore denying all truth. He confronts the issue at the root, there chopping it off and effectively destroying any resulting ideas. A skeptic is devoid of reason. In denying truth he affirms it, and therefore dismantling his whole argument. He claims no truth is attainable, yet even as he speaks these words he lives, and breathes, and engages in a form of logic, however flawed it may be. In denying truth he denies his own existence, a fact which even he, if confronted casually, could not help but confirm, whether by language or presence. Tony, Mark, Harry, Laura, Millie, and Lisa all appear to support at least some standard of truth. They don’t know how to get back, but they do have command of a few general truths – that their destination lies on the river, and that all streams inevitably lead to another water source. Lisa
bases her idea, that they might follow the stream to reach the river, off of this common knowledge. From two propositions, which she assumes to be true, she reaches a conclusion, one which will attain her goal. Accordingly, one truth is attained from two others.
Closely akin to the idea of skepticism is the idea of relativism. Although relativism does affirm some idea of truth, like skepticism it destroys the premises of its own argument. Relativism claims that all truth is relative to the individual, that each person forms their own separate idea of the truth, and that it is true if they want it to be. Rather than quantifying truth as an immutable force, or a nonexistent one, relativism takes the alternate path of creating a shifting, malleable truth to which each person holds his own hammer, free to shape it however he would choose. All things that have ever held to be true, claims relativism, are true, and anything that a person would like to believe becomes true to them, even if to no others. Glaringly, painfully obviously, however, lurks the self-contradiction of relativism; if any idea which a person believes to be true becomes true, then the idea of absolute, immutable truth, must be true to those who believe in it, and, if then the existence of absolute truth becomes a fact, relativism can no longer be true, for of it the idea of absolute truth is the exact opposite. Of the little that man may know about truth, one fact from universal experience is evident: contradiction indicates falsity, either in one or both of the opposing parties. Since, therefore, relativism contradicts the idea of absolute truth, and yet even so it does, by the basic mandate of its doctrine, affirm absolute truth to be true, it (that is, relativism) must be false. For relativism attempts to reconcile perfect contradiction, and that, of all things, is inherently impossible.
On the riverboat, another kind of question is raised; a question not about what is truth, but what is true. How, Harry wondered, does one know that reality is real and dreams false, and not the other way around? How can a thing be judged as true or as false. The answer, as Tony pointed out, lies in correspondence. When two things contradict, one must be false. When something corresponds to the common perception of reality, it can often be counted as true. Through the processes of science and logic and observation, many concrete truths can be derived. Anything that proceeds from and corresponds to these facts without contradiction, therefore is true. A dream never does perfectly correspond to reality, and no two dreams ever correspond to each other, for which reason any man can always be certain that the world of dreams is simply a figment of the imagination, and not an element of reality.
When the group arrives back from the woods, having found their way back, however, two differing ideas of truth are presented: objective truth and pragmatism. Lisa supports the pragmatic view; she believes that because her plan succeeded, it was true. Tony and Mark, however, take a quite opposite view – that because her idea was true, it succeeded. Indeed, pragmatism is quite backwards, for it turns mental reasoning, as defined by the Aristotle’s syllogism, upside down, identifying the propositions as a result gained from the conclusion. The propositions always come before the conclusion, though. Such is the way the mind reasons according to the sequential observation of evidence. Only a creature outside of time, or one with a very backwards experience of time, could logically uphold pragmatism. Lisa attempts to turn Aristotle upon his head; in doing so she classifies truth as the result of a working progression of action, although logically it is quite the opposite. The truth is never created, not at least by human intelligence. Before every action, and throughout every action it exists unchanging, the results of such an action simply discovering the truth, not creating it. Lisa was right: the stream led back to the river, on which was the mansion, and because the group tested her theory that truth was merely confirmed. Regardless of whether they chose to follow her plan or not, the fact
remains that the stream did lead back to the river. Just as a scientist only proves a theory in an experiment, rather than creating a new one, so was Lisa’s statement proved true, rather than made true.
Mark and Tony see truth for what it is – objective. Water is called wet because the senses indicate so, because the universal observation of reality confirms it. The hunch that the stream could be followed to the river was deemed true because further search proved that it was;consequently, truth is not formed by actions, but rather experienced through them, and not only through action, but also through being acted upon. Truth can be learned in mere existence, for as Descartes put it, “I think, therefore I am.” Here is a most basic truth, one of personal existence, an innate truth accessible to the mind. Knowledge of being is not given by another source, or proven by experience, but acquired through the very essence of that being. As circular as such an argument is, it needs no foundation. A circle it may be, but a perfect one at that. Innate truth is essential to existence, essential to the mind. Without fuel, a vehicle will not run, and without truth, neither will the mind. While the physical brain needs a great number of physical stimuli to operate properly, the metaphysical mind needs truth, an incorporeal substance, to do so.
Truth, therefore, is a reflection, a reflection of what really is. While being neither a physical item nor a mental creation, truth exists in the mind and empowers it. Much truth is found, whether by logic or experience or both, but essential truth is given, that innate knowledge which simply is, which needs no reason for validation. Truth, like a mirror, reflects reality. The image is often hazy, but when clearly seen it is perfect; yet although every reflection is self-sustaining, it needs a light. In darkness, a mirror can only reflect darkness, but when given light, however small, the scene begins to form with sharp clarity. Truth requires no energy, but it still
needs a source, an inherent truth, a light to begin reflection. Quite aptly, then, is mental reasoning referred to as reflection, for once one truth is given to illuminate the mind, an entire world of knowledge appears.