The Ephektikoi Substack; a Mixture of Possible Truth, Judgment, and Balderdash
A chronicle of uncertainty, philosophical muddle, and the whimsical logic of reposting
The Ephektikoi Substack
This is the Ephektikoi Substack, a journal of half-baked opinions masquerading as the truth, leavened with a bit of original balderdash.
On the Nature of Truth
Truth? Well, you can't really handle the truth, can you? Well, on the other hand, if I knew the truth, I'd post it—but how would I know that? That's the nature of the world, isn't it? We never do know the truth, although we might think we do.
Philosophers like to talk about coincidental truth. That must imply there is non-coincidental truth. I just wonder what that means. Perhaps non-coincidental truth implies that it has to be true according to someone's judgment as to "justified" truth. That would imply that whether it's coincidental or non-coincidental depends upon somebody or other's judgment of truth, judgment being a mystery in itself. So something could be non-coincidental according to Philosopher A and coincidental according to Philosopher B. So where's the objective standard?
As I said: truth, you can't handle the truth. Or maybe I should have said: truth, I'm not sure there is a truth. But I don't want to get into the absurdly relativistic and metaphysical postmodern mire.
On Illusion and Reality
Are we in the world of maya, where all is illusion? I don’t know. Maybe. It’s the kind of thing that is hard to pin it down; it slips through your fingers like everything else. I’m not pushing some deep metaphysical doctrine here—sometimes it feels like the whole show might be running on fog. That would be maya wouldn’t it?
Editorial Policy (Sort Of)
So when I re-post—when I aggregate articles—I used to say that I had two rules. One, when I post, it might represent the truth. And two, if it did, it would be important.
I've since come to realize I have no idea about what might represent the truth. So I just have a different rule: if I agree with it, I think it could be true, I'll post it. If it could be interesting, I'll post it. If I have already posted far too much in a day, I won't post it, that is I have probably annoyed my subscribers enough already in other words. It all depends on what articles I come across in a day—and whimsy.
And if I think it's balderdash—goes against my grain—I won't post it. That applies to most mainstream opinion, tainted as it is with propaganda and groupthink. In my heart of hearts, I regard that claim as truth.