The Burden of Truth: On Choice, Illusion, and the Things We Call Good ( Part 2)

If every choice is a wager, then perhaps we have been gambling with the wrong currency all along.

We adapt beliefs and ideas, inspired by the thoughts of others as if motivated reasoning is a hoax. We often reach to conclusions for emotional or intuitive reasons and then proceed to support them with reasons and logic to verify them.

The cruelest form of self-harm one can adapt is deliberately diminishing the will to experience and create perspective. Living through the lens and guards of the what their spectators have engaged and withstood.

if you think you have to write a minimum of say, 4 books, and have at least one of them reviewed by “the times” to call yourself a theorist and a philosopher, allow me to lay reality bare for you. The concept of philosophy is a hoax. How come?

Well, its all due to subjectivity. If I proceed to engage you in the tales of how reality is unfair, and how the world is brutal, and everything is meaningless, you might let yourself get winded up in the subconscious appreciation for my ideas, but kid you not, its all shit. and I am shitting you about how miserable my life is without saying or revealing you the idea.

“WHAT AN IDEA!”

No, you idiot! don’t you get it? A philosophical system is less like a scientific theory and more like a confession.

Except the philosopher often doesn't realize they're confessing. They make it sound like it is directed to all, and none, so it doesn’t appear as if it’s a confession, but rarely do they even realize they have just delved into what their subconscious prevails and holds and what they have written is their misery, not necessarily everyone’s!

Now that that is out, let me ask you a question – What way of living does this argument promote? Follow who? Reinvent the wheel? or be guided by the experiences of others? or the most vital option of all – give the wheels in the hands of morality?

But didn’t we discuss how morality is subjective too ?

Now what ? Go to sleep .

heh! jk

If any idea is never morally neutral, and no morality is purely unstigmatized, due to it being contaminated with a motivation of yearning for legitimacy (even if its 1%). Then isn’t here where the worst horror begins?

Aaaaand we are back! The search for truth again! Goddamn it! Didn’t we just go over this? I thought we were in a mutual agreement that the will to truth is paradoxical and futile.

And perhaps that is the irony.

We spent all this time chasing truth, convinced it was something waiting patiently to be discovered, only to find that every hand reaching for it carried itself along. Every philosophy, every morality, every grand and majestic theory of existence bears the fingerprints of the one who conceived it. We dress these fingerprints up as objectivity, we refine them into arguments, we polish them with logic, but beneath every system lies a perspective—a history, a temperament, a fear, a longing. We call them arguments because "confessions" would make us far less willing to believe them.

Perhaps that is why the will to truth is so paradoxical. We seek a reality free from ourselves, yet every attempt to describe reality passes through us first. We cannot step outside our own consciousness to verify that what we have found is truth itself rather than another interpretation wearing the mask of certainty. We are both the observer and the instrument of observation, forever trying to assess and measure the world, but the units of the instrument we use are predetermined, so what makes us think our measurement is the true measurement, and it has no counter.

Does that make truth worthless?

Not at all.

It simply makes humility indispensable.

The danger was never in searching for truth. The danger was believing we had finally arrived at it.

The moment an idea ceases to be a possibility and becomes an unquestionable certainty, it quietly transforms from a tool of understanding into an instrument of domination. History has rarely been written by people asking questions; it has been written by people convinced they no longer needed to.

Perhaps philosophy was never meant to hand us answers we could inhabit forever. Perhaps its purpose was to expose the assumptions hidden beneath the answers we already possess. Not to build an unshakable foundation, but to remind us that every foundation rests upon something chosen, inherited, or imagined.

So the question is no longer, "Is this true?"

It becomes, "What kind of life does this belief cultivate? What kind of person could only have arrived at this conclusion? And what hidden desires, fears, or hopes does it reveal?"

Maybe that is the closest we could ever be to the truth—not the acceptance of objectivity, but the willingness to recognize ourselves within our convictions.

The search for truth, then, does not end in certainty. It ends in self-awareness.

And perhaps that was the truth we had been trying to uncover all along.

Or perhaps this entire essay is nothing more than another confession masquerading as truth………….

Mutaal Zaheer

Solitary_Appendage