Truth, as a concept is typically thought of as a description of nature. Nature is in a specific state or configuration and truth is an accurate account or representation of that state of nature. Imagine a box has a red ball in it. Many would say that the box having the red ball in it is the Truth - This is not the case. Lets consider the following example:
A boy puts the red ball in the magician's chest. The magician asks him "What is in the chest" to which the boy responds "A red ball" – but the magician opens the chest to reveal a blue ball. The red ball is nowhere to be seen.
In the above example did the boy tell the truth ? Intuitively we can see that the boy was Truthful when asked a question- as in he answered to the best of his knowledge. We can see then that Truth exists beyond the state of nature.
If truth and nature are linked- then it is not possible for truth to be in opposition to nature. If the truth were not connected to nature in some way we would say it was false.
Truth then must precede nature in the same way that Action is preceded by desireAction is preceded by desire
This is perhaps a contentious statement to some philosophers, but that contention comes from the fuzzy definition of desire. When I talk about Desires in this case- I am simply stating that bef... and how Life imitates artLife imitates art
Anti-Mimesis is the philosophical stance that Art influences life. It stands in opposition to the idea of Mimesis, popularized by Aristotle; the idea that art attempts to mimic the perfection of li... . That every state of nature has a causal relation to some other state of nature- and we can trace back these states of nature to some pre-natural cause which we can call Truth.
note: I am not so sure of the link here. I think the example with the box demonstrates that Truth as a concept is not dependent on the material state of nature, but I don't think that demonstrates that truth is causal to nature