Human beings have long wrestled with the relationship between truth and language. Is truth something we discover through reasoning, or is it something immediate, beyond the grasp of conceptual thought? Philosopher Emanuele Severino argues that truth cannot be reached from untruth—reasoning alone does not produce it, because we are always already within it, even if we fail to recognize it. Recognition, then, is not a product of logical deduction but an immediate, self-evident seeing. Yet, despite this, Severino dedicated a lifetime to writing about it.
The tension between direct seeing and linguistic expression, however, is not unique to Severino. It is found in mystical traditions, near-death experiences (NDEs), and philosophical contemplation alike. Each suggests that truth is not constructed but simply appears, and that language, despite its power, always remains insufficient to capture it fully.
The Immediacy of Truth and the Limits of Language
If truth is something that is immediately seen rather than reasoned toward, then language can never fully contain it. Consider the experience of looking at a vast night sky filled with stars. The totality of that vision is grasped immediately by the eyes, but if one were to describe it to someone who had never seen it, the description would always fall short. Even an entire book dedicated to describing that sky would be inadequate compared to the direct experience of seeing it.
This limitation of language applies not only to sensory perception but to all immediate experiences of truth. Whether in mystical revelation, deep contemplative states, or the extraordinary encounters of NDEs, those who have ‘seen’ often struggle to communicate what they have encountered. The sequential nature of language—one word following another—fragments what was originally whole. Words dissect, analyze, and systematize, but they do not reveal in the same way that direct seeing does.
Philosophy and the Problem of Mediation
Philosophy, as the discipline of thought and language, finds itself in an intricate position. If truth is immediate, why does philosophy engage in reasoning at all? If direct seeing is the only way to truth, then what is the role of philosophical discourse?
Severino’s work suggests that philosophy does not create or discover truth, but rather clarifies, refines, and removes obstructions to its appearing. It functions like a guide pointing toward what is already evident but often obscured by false assumptions. In this way, philosophy does not mediate truth but testifies to it. Yet, even this testimony is bound by the limitations of language—it can indicate truth, but never replace the direct seeing of it.
For Severino, this distinction is crucial because it aligns with his rejection of becoming. Truth does not emerge or evolve through reasoning; it is eternally present. Philosophy, then, does not build truth step by step but rather exposes the contradictions of the belief in becoming, which obstructs truth’s self-evidence. It is not that reason leads to truth, but that reason, when properly refined, ceases to obscure what was always already there.
This paradox is not unique to Severino. Many traditions recognize a fundamental distinction between direct knowledge and discursive understanding. In Zen Buddhism, for example, enlightenment is often described as an immediate realization beyond words. Likewise, Christian mystics such as Meister Eckhart spoke of an experience of divine truth that transcends intellectual comprehension.
Mystical Experience and the Ineffability of Truth
Mystics throughout history have described encounters with an ultimate reality that defies language. The moment they attempt to put their experience into words, they recognize the insufficiency of those words. St. John of the Cross, in The Dark Night of the Soul, speaks of a divine presence that is beyond thought and speech. Similarly, Thomas Aquinas, after a lifetime of writing philosophical and theological masterpieces, experienced a mystical vision so profound that he abandoned his work, saying that all he had written was “like straw” in comparison.
This ineffability is not a failure of articulation but an inherent quality of truth as it appears in these moments. To know something conceptually is different from knowing it directly. A child might learn all the facts about fire, but until they feel its warmth, their knowledge remains incomplete. Mystics insist that ultimate reality is like fire—it must be encountered, not merely described.
Near-Death Experiences and the Limits of Conceptual Thought
NDEs provide another striking example of the inadequacy of language in capturing direct experience. Those who undergo NDEs frequently report a sense of overwhelming clarity and understanding that they struggle to articulate upon returning. They describe knowledge that is immediate and whole, not processed step by step as in ordinary thinking. Yet, when they attempt to explain what they have seen, their words often fail, and they resort to metaphors: a bright light, a feeling of unity, an indescribable peace.
The difficulty in conveying these experiences mirrors the challenge found in mystical traditions and Severino’s philosophy. Just as one cannot transfer the direct seeing of the night sky through writing, so too can one not fully communicate the immediacy of truth revealed in extraordinary experiences.
The Role of Philosophy in the Face of Direct Seeing
If ultimate truth is immediately known and beyond reasoning, does this render philosophy obsolete? Not necessarily. The function of philosophy may not be to find truth but to clear away the misunderstandings that obscure it. In this sense, philosophy is not the path to truth but the removal of barriers to its appearing.
This aligns with the classical idea of philosophy as a form of preparation. Plato, for instance, spoke of philosophy as a training for the soul to recognize truth. Similarly, Buddhist and Vedantic traditions see intellectual inquiry as a means to purify thought so that direct realization can take place.
For Severino, the risk lies in mistaking conceptual thought for truth itself. The language of philosophy must serve as a witness, not as an authority that seeks to construct reality. Any framework, even one that aims to purify thought, can become an obstacle if it is seen as a substitute for truth rather than an indicator of it. Philosophy’s highest role is not to capture truth but to bring thought to the threshold where truth’s self-evidence appears.
Toward a Vision Beyond Words
The tension between direct seeing and conceptual thought is not one to be resolved but to be understood. Whether in Severino’s philosophy, mystical contemplation, or NDE accounts, the pattern remains the same: truth is immediate, while language remains an imperfect vehicle for conveying it. Philosophy, at its best, serves as a witness to truth rather than a creator of it, guiding thought to the threshold where seeing takes over.
If there is a lesson in this, it may be that we must learn to recognize the limits of our words and concepts. Instead of seeking truth solely through thought, we might allow ourselves to be open to its appearing—to recognize that, at the deepest level, what we seek is not something to be reasoned toward but something to be seen.
For those who have glimpsed it—whether through philosophy, mysticism, or an NDE—the challenge is not just to explain it, but to live in harmony with it. And for those who have not yet seen, perhaps the best philosophy can do is to gesture toward the horizon, where truth waits to appear.
It Is What It Is 
Leave a comment