Recognised, not invented

To suppose something is recognised, involves that something already existing. Whereas, the invention of something does not presuppose of its existence; rather, it is made to be, via the act of inventing.

As has been outlined, elementary sanity consists in the recognition that truth exists. Hence, fundamentally, truth is something that is already in existence that the sane mind is forced to recognise it. The mind conforms itself to the reality of objective truth, which exists independently of the mind. Hence the mind does not invent 'truth', no matter what some may claim.

For example, 1+1= 2 : this is a necessary fact that is not invented. Rather, it remains true, even if no one were to recognise it. It would be absurd to suppose its truth is 'invented'. For to claim this, is to suppose that it is not necessarily true in the first place. We do not make it true; it is already true; and all we can do is to submit our minds to its truth, and to the liberating rule of sanity. It is indeed necessary to consider it true if sanity is to be maintained; and claims to the contrary display deep-rooted insanity.

But, how often do we hear basic sanity called into question, by claims such as : "I'll decide what the truth is, and you have no right to point it out!". Whereas, in point of fact, no one can decide what the truth is! They can decide what they would want to be the case, but since when does an insane want amount to that want being true? And whereas, the one pointing things out could simply trying to awaken his dear friend from delirium. Picture a drug-addict who thinks he has life under control etc, whereas, in point of fact, he is clueless, and his friend is simply trying to point the truth out to him, for his own good.

Or "what is true for you is not necessarily true for me". Again, a fatal misunderstanding about the nature of truth, and a fatal demonstration of an insanity lurking beneath. 1 + 1 = 2 irrespective of what one subjectively may wish or hope for. Or to be less mathematical (but nevertheless, just as real), for example, the torture of an innocent child remains wrong, irrespective of what an insane person may think. Even if a deluded person does not recognise it as wrong, it is still true that it is wrong. His deluded thinking that it is right, does not make it so.

Of course, it must be conceded, that some things are true in reference to some, but not, in reference to others. One may like chocolate ice cream, another may not. Hence, concerning 'likes' as such, truth is centered on the unique individual. Nevertheless, on questions that concern the objective reality which exists independently of likes and dislikes, then truth is not determined by likes and dislikes. To use the example above, it may true that one has the absurd idea of 1+1= 3, and it may be true that this idea is held. One may like the idea that 1+1=3; one may want it to be the case. Be all this as it may, it does not make the claim itself true.

Bow in recognition of the basic truths of reality, do not distort them, or refuse to recognise them. Or much worse, don't pretend to invent them, or make their reality contingent on what you think. For if your thinking becomes deluded, the basic truths of reality in fact do not change - they remain forever real.

Elementary Sanity

Presumably, sanity is to be preferred to insanity. As such, if sanity is to be maintained, its most elementary aspects must also be maintained. But suffice to say, whilst most will be forced to recognise the elementary truths which underpin reality - the recognition of which constitutes basic sanity - they will disparage them in practice. And from this, it follows, that in practice, the most pernicious form of insanity can take hold.

The most elementary principle consists simply in the recognition of the existence of truth. Upon its recognition, all sanity is derived; upon its denial, insanity. Indeed, who can deny that reality is real simply because it is? Truth is real because reality is real. It pertains to the essence of reality to be real, and consequently true.

Any attempt to deny this will only serve to illustrate the fact of the existence of truth. For the one who audaciously claims "there is no such thing as truth!" is himself making a claim he purports to be true. And so, such a statement is self-refuting.

But how many times do we hear this attitude, that there is nothing at all set in concrete, eternally true, for all places and all times (which implies the very existence of truth can be doubted)? Tragically, such an attitude exhibits a deep insanity, against which even schizophrenia will appear sane!

There is no more futile and insane exercise than to cast doubt on the reality of truth. The more one attempts to do so, there more it stares one in the face (as denying truth is continually self-refuting).