1. 淺俗義: 對真理的存在持懷疑態度, 不能斷定或否定其存在和不存在. 此義, 為懷疑論.

Critique: Skepticism or agnosticism is a leaky bucket in epistemology. Why would anyone be in such a privileged position to doubt and make statement about truth? Doubt what? Doubt the very existence of truth? What truth then? Existence in what way? Do skepticists know anything at all about truth or the mere existence and/or knowability that leads them to doubt either strongly or weakly? If nothing at all, then truth is better described as unfathomable or unexperienced. So why bother doubt?

It may sound better for weak skepticists to state that I do not know if I know truth than for strong agnosticists to say that I know that I do not know truth. But again, why would anyone know or do not know or make any statement about his or her (un)knowablity about the (un)knowability of truth? It is absurd, unless truth magically compels us to speak about truth one way or another.

2. 勝深義: 對真理之存在無疑, 但認為凡情凡智(普通人的認知能力, 和認知工具), 如語言, 文字, 邏輯, 圖像, 等等, 不能直接標示和掌握真理.

Critique: On the surface this is a better position. But on scrutiny it is another leaky bucket. Why should anyone be so sure about the existence of truth while at the same time admant about the difficulty to know the substance (or stuff) of truth? Someone may use the analogy that I see something lying on the road but I do not know much about it. This begs the question of why that something you see is existent just because you see it. Seeing does not equate with existence. It may be an illusion.

Instead of letting the subjects to guess about the reality of Truth, the Truth himself (not itself) came to the world of subjects and made dwelling among man. That is incarnational realism. We know virtually nothing about the objective Truth unless and until the self-embodiment of Truth revealed in ways that we understand. We cannot know Truth unless and until Truth lets us to experience him with all of our faculties of sense and spirit beyond a reasonable doubt.