Friday, October 15


Jaq hacks me again (in a totally friendly way) about a quote from our past, over 12 years ago. I said:

'Maybe truth doesn't exist, maybe truth subsists.'

What I meant was that maybe truth is less robust than we think. I was thinking that 'existence' is more robust than 'subsistence'. Is there any reason to think that from their etymologies?

exist: Latin existere, exsistere, to come forth, be manifest : ex-, ex- + sistere, to stand; see st- in Indo-European Roots.

subsist: Latin subsistere, to support : sub-, sub- + sistere, to stand; see st- in Indo-European Roots.

I was trying to suggest that 'subsistence' is more subtle and that 'existence' is more tangible, more ex-ternal, more independent. Maybe 'truth could emerge from reality and exist therein, as opposed to an independently existing truth.

Not that I believe that today. Not that I was justified (my concept of the etymologies was vague). Plus, no one gets judged for undergraduate philosophy flights of fancy, right? :-)

Anyway, cheers, Jaq, and another public thank you for your kind words about the twins. Best wishes for you and yours, especially Quinn.
Post a Comment