The Higher Truth, a Way of Dogma?

    From the beginning, I would like to distinguish myself as an observer. This is a personal work that presents my own view on the subject at hand in which I try to assert these two quite misunderstood concepts from different perspectives.

    As such, I start by trying to differentiate the notion of Truth from Dogma.

    Truth, I tend to believe, is the most sought upon characteristic within all that is said and heard. At its root stands the highly passed around principle that it should transcend such concepts as Gender, Race, Nationality, Age and so forth. I emphasize on the probability of this fact mainly because, as you most know, truth came to be influenced and altered by different powers throughout history, thus nullifying my previous statement. Paradoxical, isn't it? That's where the dogma intervenes, as to better embellish the nature of truth in a way that it can be adjusted, regardless of one's opinion. More often than you'd think, it comes in handy for that category of people which divides rather than bring closer the inhabitants of this world. But, let us not deviate. 

    In other words, truth should stand by itself, having the utmost value and not be taken upon ourselves. I am not saying that it should be left in some deity's hands but, nonetheless, it should be regarded as a distinctive 'voice' in our lives, rather than be used as a weapon for one's beliefs and interests. I can not help myself but quote Descartes on this matter 'The first precept was never to accept a thing as true until I knew it as such without a single doubt.'

    Now that we've got a glance at what could truth stand for after all, let's proceed to analyzing Descartes's affirmation a little bit. Quite a lot of his work is based on the logical and rational aspect of everything that surrounds us. As such, he spoke of doubts as being the primary obstacle in finding true meaning in an affirmation of any kind, for instance. 

   His premise is that, taking into account that you could tackle and overcome any possible doubt, you will be able to acquire absolute knowledge of any particular matter at hand. Well, what happens when the very nature of that doubts exceeds your capacities of understanding? Do you leave it as such or seek higher knowledge in books, certain persons or even cults?

   These two questions help me ease into the subject of Dogma. When confronted by increasingly difficult doubts, you combat them with increasingly knowledge of that particular problem. It seems only logical, right? 

    And that, my readers, is where Truth and Dogma have to unify, in order to cure our ceaseless thirst for knowledge. There are some very discussed issues that one simply cannot tackle, if only for a teaching, a creed, that can hope to clarify the essence to the individual, prior to his own opinion. Yet, the truth obtained won't be absolute. So, in conclusion, should we stay away from such subjects that question our very existence or seek to nurture our understanding by following one or a multitude of views on the conjuncture? The decision is up to you, but you'll have to come to terms with changing yourself if taking the path of the Dogma, for the illusion of higher truth can come only by sacrifice. As such, I prefer to observe, for the moment, rather than indulge myself into, for example, religion, that explains everything and nothing at the same time.