This question carries a distinctive tone: it is not asking whether we know some truths, or even many truths, but whether there exists a final, completed form of knowing—an epistemic endpoint in which truth is fully captured, once and for all.
“Ultimate truth” sounds like the endpoint of inquiry.
But that sense of an endpoint depends on a very specific assumption: that knowledge is a kind of accumulation that could, in principle, be completed from a position outside its own conditions of production.
Once that assumption is examined, the question ceases to be about limits of knowledge. It becomes about a misplaced model of knowledge itself.
1. The surface form of the question
“Can we ever know the ultimate truth?”
In its everyday philosophical form, this asks:
- whether there exists a final, complete account of reality
- whether human cognition can access it
- whether inquiry has a limit beyond which truth is no longer partial or revisable
The phrase “ultimate truth” signals completion: truth as a finished totality rather than an ongoing process.
2. Hidden ontological commitments
For the question to function as intended, several assumptions must already be in place:
- that knowledge is a collection of propositions that can, in principle, be completed
- that truth is something that exists as a total set, independent of its articulation
- that inquiry moves toward a final state rather than operating within continuous constraints
- that it is meaningful to imagine a perspective from which all truths are simultaneously available
These assumptions construct knowledge as a container and truth as its contents.
The question then becomes: can the container be filled?
But this model is already doing the work of totalisation.
3. Stratal misalignment
Within relational ontology, knowledge is not a container that accumulates representations of a pre-given totality. It is a process of constrained semiotic actualisation across instantiation events.
The question “Can we ever know the ultimate truth?” performs a series of misalignments:
(a) Totalisation of truth
Truth is treated as a single, completed object.
- Instead of being distributed across instances of construal, truth is imagined as a unified endpoint
(b) Accumulation model of knowledge
Knowing is treated as additive completion.
- Each truth is a piece of a larger puzzle
- The puzzle is assumed to have a final, complete form
(c) External epistemic standpoint
The question presupposes a view from which completion could be assessed.
- It assumes a meta-position outside all instantiations of knowing
- From which the totality of truth could be surveyed as an object
But no such standpoint exists within the system of instantiation it presupposes.
4. Relational re-description
If we remain within relational ontology, knowledge is not accumulation toward totality. It is:
- ongoing instantiation of constrained semiotic processes
- distributed across contexts, systems, and perspectives
- continuously re-actualised rather than progressively completed
Truth, likewise, is not a final object. It is:
- the stabilisation of construal under constraint
- locally and intersubjectively coordinated across instances
- revisable within the systems that produce it
There is no stratum in which “all truth” appears as a completed object. There are only:
- multiple, intersecting systems of construal
- each producing locally stabilised truth-conditions
- under different constraints and purposes
What we call “objectivity” is not access to total truth, but the robustness of stabilisation across variation in instantiation.
5. Dissolution of the problem-space
Once the accumulation model of knowledge is withdrawn, the question “Can we ever know the ultimate truth?” loses its target.
It depends on:
- truth as a completed totality
- knowledge as a container that could be filled
- a standpoint outside all instantiation from which completion could be judged
- the possibility of final closure in a process that is structurally open-ended
If these assumptions are removed, there is no remaining object called “ultimate truth” for knowledge to reach.
What disappears is not truth, and not knowledge, but the idea that their relation takes the form of completion.
6. Residual attraction
The question persists because the accumulation model of knowledge is deeply embedded.
It is sustained by:
- scientific and educational metaphors of “building knowledge”
- the intuitive appeal of convergence toward a final theory
- the desire for epistemic security against revision
- the analogy between knowledge and storage systems
Most importantly, it is sustained by a misreading of stability:
- stable explanations are treated as approaching finality
- robustness is confused with completion
- agreement across contexts is read as proximity to total truth
But stability within constraints is not convergence on totality. It is the effect of relational coherence under variation.
Closing remark
“Can we ever know the ultimate truth?” appears to ask whether inquiry has a final destination.
Once that projection is withdrawn, knowledge does not end.
It is re-situated: not as a path toward final truth, but as the ongoing, stratified, and relational actualisation of truth-conditions within constrained systems of meaning-making.
No comments:
Post a Comment