Arguments Against Augustine's Claim Of Immutable Truth
Argument Against Augustine's Claim of Immutable Truth In On the Free Choice of Will, Augustine develops some incredible claims about the nature of truth, and then further develops this nature of truth into an integral piece of his argument for the existence of God. In Book II of On the Free Choice of Will, Augustine argues that “One immutable truth, common to all who know, exists, and is more excellent than the mind knows” (Augustine 64). Augustine then goes on to defend this argument by reminding Evodius that a discussion had already occurred earlier that somehow proved the validity of immutable truth. Augustine explains this to Evodius by stating: “You will not deny, therefore, that immutable truth, comprising everything that is immutably
…show more content…
true, exists; and you cannot say that immutable truth is yours, or mine, or anyone else's. It is present and show itself as a kind of miraculously secret, yet public, light for all who see what is immutably true” (Augustine 64).
The undeniability of this claim is the result of Augustine's argument made for the existent of God, which is formulated just prior to this passage. It is my intention to expose where Augustine's argument for the existent of God is troublesome, and by this exposition, show that belief in immutable truth may be problematic. Augustine's proof for the existence of God begins by a questioning of Evodius on the ability of man to see truth. Augustine questions Evodius by asking if the truth is something seen by each person individually, but that it is common to everyone? Evodius agrees with the statement and then Augustine begins laying the foundation for his existence of God through several claims on the nature of truth (Augustine 61). Augustine's first premise of truth is that “we should seek after wisdom” (Augustine 61). He then goes on to explain that this is a truth that “Each man sees it with his own mind” and that what is seen “is present for all to see in common” (Augustine 61). This premise appears to be plausible and the truth value of such a statement is really open to interpretation. If it is accepted that seeking after wisdom is something that should be done, then this entails the need for a clear definition of wisdom. This clarity of definition is necessary to set the foundation of the argument. By not clearly defining wisdom, and stating that is should be sought after, Augustine's first premise appears to not be fully grounded. As an example against this definition of immutable truth, the ambiguous rabbit-duck image can be used. If a person is shown the image, without any foresight, then they will see either a rabbit or a duck first. They may later see either the rabbit or the duck, but initially will see either one or the other. Now, take the same image and show it to someone, who believes before they see the image, that they are going to see the image of a duck. Miraculously, when the image is shown, they see a duck first. This heuristic principle of the way the human mind presupposes information works to expose the flaw in Augustine's argument that “truth is present for all to see in common” (Augustine 61). Another example of how this grounding premise of immutable truth appears to flawed is to take, for instance, the appearance of messages in the lyrics of songs that are played backwards. If you did not know what you were looking to hear, you would listen to the song played backwards and not be able to make out any message. By doing this you would conclude that there is no hidden message in the lyrics. Now, play the same lyrics backward while you are looking at the purported message, and miraculously it seems that there is a message. Using this example, the connection between actually hearing the message is that it was already assumed, by the written message, that what you were hearing is indeed a message. The message was preconceived so you were already in a position to accept that what you were hearing was indeed a message. Perhaps the best example of how Augustine's argument for the immutability of truth is flawed, is in the structure of the claim itself.
Logic may be able to expose the validity of the claim. First, to formulate the actual claim into premises and a conclusion: P1: Immutable truth presents itself as a kind of secret, yet public, light for all who see what is immutably true. P2: Immutable truth shows itself as a kind of secret, yet public, light for all who see what is immutably true. C: Immutable truth compromising everything that is immutably true exists, and you cannot say that immutable truth is yours, mine, or anyone else's (Augustine 64).
In order for this statement to be sound and valid, both of the premises and the conclusion needs to be true. In the case of the first premise (P1), both of the examples of the duck-rabbit image, and the music analogy, appear to show evidence that immutable truth does not present itself in way that everyone can see. Therefore, premise one is false. The most significant reason this premise is false is based on the term “presents”. This is an important distinction in difference between the first and second premises. It can be argued that immutable truth “shows” itself, but it seems reasonable, in light of the two counter examples of the duck-rabbit image, and the music analogy, that immutable truth does not necessarily “present” itself. At this point, there is no need for further exploration of the second premise nor the conclusion, as premise one has “presented” itself as being
false. These examples are used as an analogy to expose what appears to be going on with Evodius' acceptance of Augustine's argument for immutable truth. Both Augustine and Evodius have started from a position where they already believe in God, or rather, the message is already there. Augustine furthers this belief by claiming that truth is seen, or in this case heard, in an individuals mind, but this truth is common to everyone Augustine 61). It would seem in these examples, that truth is in an individual's mind, but not common to everyone. By starting in the initial position that God exists, Augustine is proving the claim of immutable truth by appealing to a belief already held. In conclusion, as shown with the duck rabbit image, the music analogy, and logic, the belief that immutable truth is somehow undeniable, has been exposed to be problematic, and not sufficient to claim that immutable truth exists.
true, exists; and you cannot say that immutable truth is yours, or mine, or anyone else's. It is present and show itself as a kind of miraculously secret, yet public, light for all who see what is immutably true” (Augustine 64).
The undeniability of this claim is the result of Augustine's argument made for the existent of God, which is formulated just prior to this passage. It is my intention to expose where Augustine's argument for the existent of God is troublesome, and by this exposition, show that belief in immutable truth may be problematic. Augustine's proof for the existence of God begins by a questioning of Evodius on the ability of man to see truth. Augustine questions Evodius by asking if the truth is something seen by each person individually, but that it is common to everyone? Evodius agrees with the statement and then Augustine begins laying the foundation for his existence of God through several claims on the nature of truth (Augustine 61). Augustine's first premise of truth is that “we should seek after wisdom” (Augustine 61). He then goes on to explain that this is a truth that “Each man sees it with his own mind” and that what is seen “is present for all to see in common” (Augustine 61). This premise appears to be plausible and the truth value of such a statement is really open to interpretation. If it is accepted that seeking after wisdom is something that should be done, then this entails the need for a clear definition of wisdom. This clarity of definition is necessary to set the foundation of the argument. By not clearly defining wisdom, and stating that is should be sought after, Augustine's first premise appears to not be fully grounded. As an example against this definition of immutable truth, the ambiguous rabbit-duck image can be used. If a person is shown the image, without any foresight, then they will see either a rabbit or a duck first. They may later see either the rabbit or the duck, but initially will see either one or the other. Now, take the same image and show it to someone, who believes before they see the image, that they are going to see the image of a duck. Miraculously, when the image is shown, they see a duck first. This heuristic principle of the way the human mind presupposes information works to expose the flaw in Augustine's argument that “truth is present for all to see in common” (Augustine 61). Another example of how this grounding premise of immutable truth appears to flawed is to take, for instance, the appearance of messages in the lyrics of songs that are played backwards. If you did not know what you were looking to hear, you would listen to the song played backwards and not be able to make out any message. By doing this you would conclude that there is no hidden message in the lyrics. Now, play the same lyrics backward while you are looking at the purported message, and miraculously it seems that there is a message. Using this example, the connection between actually hearing the message is that it was already assumed, by the written message, that what you were hearing is indeed a message. The message was preconceived so you were already in a position to accept that what you were hearing was indeed a message. Perhaps the best example of how Augustine's argument for the immutability of truth is flawed, is in the structure of the claim itself.
Logic may be able to expose the validity of the claim. First, to formulate the actual claim into premises and a conclusion: P1: Immutable truth presents itself as a kind of secret, yet public, light for all who see what is immutably true. P2: Immutable truth shows itself as a kind of secret, yet public, light for all who see what is immutably true. C: Immutable truth compromising everything that is immutably true exists, and you cannot say that immutable truth is yours, mine, or anyone else's (Augustine 64).
In order for this statement to be sound and valid, both of the premises and the conclusion needs to be true. In the case of the first premise (P1), both of the examples of the duck-rabbit image, and the music analogy, appear to show evidence that immutable truth does not present itself in way that everyone can see. Therefore, premise one is false. The most significant reason this premise is false is based on the term “presents”. This is an important distinction in difference between the first and second premises. It can be argued that immutable truth “shows” itself, but it seems reasonable, in light of the two counter examples of the duck-rabbit image, and the music analogy, that immutable truth does not necessarily “present” itself. At this point, there is no need for further exploration of the second premise nor the conclusion, as premise one has “presented” itself as being
false. These examples are used as an analogy to expose what appears to be going on with Evodius' acceptance of Augustine's argument for immutable truth. Both Augustine and Evodius have started from a position where they already believe in God, or rather, the message is already there. Augustine furthers this belief by claiming that truth is seen, or in this case heard, in an individuals mind, but this truth is common to everyone Augustine 61). It would seem in these examples, that truth is in an individual's mind, but not common to everyone. By starting in the initial position that God exists, Augustine is proving the claim of immutable truth by appealing to a belief already held. In conclusion, as shown with the duck rabbit image, the music analogy, and logic, the belief that immutable truth is somehow undeniable, has been exposed to be problematic, and not sufficient to claim that immutable truth exists.