Truth
It seems like the definition of the word, “TRUTH” should be universal. That the goal of any reasoning person would be to uncover indisputable facts surrounding a given situation so that everyone can have as clear an understanding of our environment as possible. It also seems like this word should be sacred, something we aspire to discover, regardless of how it may impact our skewed sense of the world around us. Especially if we define Truth as irrefutable.
Think of the oath taken in a courtroom, “Do you swear to tell the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth?” In our Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . . .” We hear the phrase “the Truth of the matter” all the time and yet what does that really mean? Is there an ultimate definition of Truth we can point to as a pinnacle of agreement that rings true for all of us?
Unfortunately, even though we say the Truth is the Truth, it remains one of the most elusive and malleable words in language. In the discussion of our Subjective Nature, I noted that we pass every bit of information received by our brains through a gauntlet of filters. By doing so we manipulate reality into a framework that fits within our preconceived notions of the world around us. The only way to find an agreed upon actual sense of Truth is to eliminate as many of those filters as possible.
Truth, ostensibly, is supposed to be the great equalizer, the foundation of our interaction with each other and the basis of language. Over tens of thousands of years we developed understandable sounds to identify aspects of our surroundings, eventually creating a complex array of written words based on our spoken language. To achieve salient communication we needed to agree on fairly accurate definitions of the sounds we made. At some point these agreed upon definitions were gathered into a single source referred to as a dictionary which has enabled us to make sense of our communications with each other.
Through that development of language it seemed we were moving towards giving Truth a succinct and definitive meaning. But the power of that word, what we imbued the meaning of Truth to be, warped our definition of Truth, turning it into a cudgel to be molded like a lump of clay to become whatever someone wanted it to mean. The word was usurped by whoever needed to make a declaration of intent to further their own agenda.
Most of us are well aware of the distribution of disinformation that is intended to trick the vulnerable into believing that Truth is in the eye of the beholder, that certain people have a lock on Truth and what is offered by anyone with an opposing point of view is a lie. In Lee McIntyre’s book, Post-Truth, he discusses, “How we arrived in a post-truth era, when ‘alternative facts’ replace actual facts. And feelings have more weight than evidence.” In 2005, on his television show, The Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert coined a term he called “Truthiness.” His word has come to be defined as, “Truthiness is the belief or assertion that a particular statement is true based on the intuition or perceptions of some individual or individuals, without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts. Truthiness can range from ignorant assertions of falsehoods to deliberate duplicity or propaganda intended to sway opinions.”
What is evident to me is that the noble concept of Truth has eroded. It has become weaponized, regardless of any facts that might back up the use of that word. Only in science, and specifically mathematics, can we rely on the purity of an equation based on indisputable facts. Prime numbers are prime numbers here on earth just as they are in another galaxy a billion light years away. I find this fact to be wonderfully reassuring. That there is a higher level of Truth that we can aspire to achieve. If we can find an ultimate definition within science and mathematics, perhaps there is a chance for us to find it in the more ethereal realm of general communication.
Of course I understand this is a naïve desire on my part. Our subjective nature is an almost impenetrable barrier to settling on a universal definition of Truth. But I continue to hope that we might be able to create a beacon to hold up as a way of moving our species forward towards a better world. A world where the Truth is no longer dragged through the mud but set on a mountain top for all to see.
[Strange words for those who know me as a skeptical curmudgeon (I still am) but even cynics can dream.]
Sadly, even the indisputable facts you reference received cynical twists. Science is under attack and proven facts or truths have been hijacked and manipulated. Even sadder is the development of “alternative facts!” What kind of twisted reality are people “OK” with now? It frightens me and many around me. As discouraging and sometimes depressing as this is, I keep hoping like you. Tobin, I love your dream and share your dream.
Dean,
As always, thank you for your comments! YAY! As I will note to Mr. Retzer’s comment as well, it has become apparent this morning that I need to address some questions regarding this post on Truth. What I realized I omitted was a way of working our way back to at least something akin to what we believe truth should be. So as much as I thought I was finished (sort of) with this subject, next week will be Truth-Part II. I firmly believe that members of our species must be held to account for disseminating intentional falsehoods and for the rest of us to continue to seek that higher plain of more salient and truthful communication.
“It seems like the definition of the word, “TRUTH” should be universal.
Especially if we define Truth as irrefutable.” Why would we possibly believe this?
More useful may be the definition you bring up in several places: “Something we aspire to discover.” Being a member of the Skeptical Curmudgeon Party myself, I have little trust in anyone claiming to possess The Truth; unless they can provide me with a plausible explanation of how their particular Truth was revealed to them.
I do have a couple heuristics I’ve found useful in illuminating the Truth, (neither on the face of it seem actual necessary conditions for Truth).
1) Who stands to benefit by this Truth? “Follow the Money,” is a strategy for casting doubt on most claims of Truth.
2) Is the Truth consistent? Though I can accept that consistency is often a Hobgoblin, blatant hypocrisy is a good snake-oil detector.
It seems interesting, to me anyway, that both of these heuristics address identifying un-Truth rather than proving Truth. There may be an important principal here.
Michael,
Your replies are inevitably quite thought provoking and greatly appreciated. In your first rejoinder you used the phrase:”Why would we possibly believe this?” To me the key word in that sentence is “believe”, the definition and use of which we have discussed many times. And perhaps that is your point and I’m just a bit dim today. The word believe is in itself an onerous concept since it takes on a life of its own. Belief, faith, hope; they all lead to myriad interpretations since these are very personal perspectives.
To me, at least, the construct of Truth needs to be like the structure of a tall building. Each girder must be placed in such a way as to support the overall structure or the end results may be dire where everything that was worked for collapses in chaos. The Truth has to be solid, factual, and indisputable. Certainly there are situations where claims of Truth are mirky (your Hobgoblin) and may be interpreted in a variety of ways, but my sense is that in these situations, emotional and experiential baggage have more to do with agenda than with finding the Truth.
As I noted to Dean in my reply to him, I plan on writing a Truth-Part II for next week. I realized I needed to offer some thoughts on how we attempt to find our way back to a more universal sense of this elusive word. I do believe there are ways, but it will take Mindfulness and a great deal of work. The big question that will remain unanswered is: Are there enough people who want to get to the Truth? I think I know the answer to that question but I’m going to stick my fingers in my ears and go “LA-LA-LA-LA-LA” so I can pretend I didn’t hear the answer.
Thanks again!
Ok, I will take a turn at this. Your topic of the week “truth” is one of the foundation stones of our society, the culture of the West even. Like “reason” and “substance” of which the man on the street feels no reason for debate, there is no confusion, just assumptions that underpin all of our discourse, science, and economics. We are what and who we are as a consequence of “faith” in such foundation concepts.
Clearly, things have changed, markedly on account of “truth.” The man-on-the-street, unless he/she is a card carrying religionist, or a political party devotee, no longer has a clue as to what truth is anymore. Confusion reigns, many Americans have just given up, becoming cynical, disengaged.
You refer to language in your essay. Does language imply that truth is for the most part like a photo album, the photos, depending upon the skill of the photographer, aspire to capture reality in a 1 to 1 relationship? Is this enough to round out what language does? Turns out that language does more, much more, and language always has. Is language adaptable to become a cudgel? Of course. Ill will even murderous intent is expressed in language. Language may be used to cultivate community or to incite sufficient rage to inspire an army. Is not language a useful fabrication, a vessel to contain the full range of purposes inherent within the human animal?
Truth is in the eye of the beholder, full stop.
Truth was not dispensed by a deity and brought down the mountain, nor was in laid down by divinely inspired authors of the King James Bible. Your truth and my truth depends upon a point-of-view, upon what time and circumstance has done with you and I. A human agent + time + circumstance are grist for the mill of truth. Because my POV is mine alone and thus is severely limited, I need to receive your POV to enrich and modify what I have held true. Perhaps this is the prime motivator for our social nature, – alone our sense of reality is simply not enough to promote survival. We need one another.
A last comment. Human subjectivity is less of a barrier to a grasp of truth, than a basic given that we’d best make our peace with. Truth is perspectival because that is just how you and I are. There’s never to be a single banner under which we can all unite! To keep assuming there must be one, is at root the cause of the human slaughter that has existed since before recorded history. Give it up! Someone else does not have to be wrong so that you can be right.
Ok. Great topic. I enjoy the variety of commentary. Sound thinking promotes a good life!
Jerry,
Thank you for your in-depth thoughts about this topic. I agree that, at least at this point in time, our interpretation of Truth is based on perspective. My hope is that someday we humans can have a more succinct and less subjective definition of Truth, one that is based on factual information. I see a glimmer of hope in this direction when I read through Snopes.com where they have dissected claims and come up with some kind of answer. It may be that some subjects are partially true, while others are blatantly false. My guess is that the staff at Snopes is VERY busy these days.
I believe that if our species can avoid extinction (a very big IF) that we will find a way of evolving to be less subjective and more open to fact based information. That doesn’t mean we won’t have arguments about issues, but not all information is provable like a mathematical equation. I suspect there will always be philosophy and a delving into the why’s and wherefore’s of life and the universe. That’s as it should be. But I see a potential time when humans will be able to gladly accept a solution to a problem that is based on fact and not hyperbole. Or not! Who knows?
Jerry most closely writes to where I stand on the issue of truth. — In particular, I agree with his thoughts on the relationship of truth to language itself. It’s a construction made by human beings, and is as variable, inconstant, and fallible as we are.
I once had a discussion with the president of a Presbyterian seminary on truth as “something worthy to swear on.” His argument was that there had to be something that we hold onto and acknowledge in the deepest part of ourselves, something that we would not violate or deny. Otherwise, how could we have a legal system? He held fast to his argument and repeated that “there must be something” — something sacred that we could stake our lives on — so help us God. (There God creeps in, and that’s another whole ball of wax.)
This fellow needed truth to exist and to matter to both the speaker and the listener. Yet humans need to give up certainty and consider the beliefs of each other so we can survive together on this planet.
That’s my belief for today. Tomorrow . . . .
I smiled to myself when I read your statement – (There God creeps in, and that’s another whole ball of wax.).
Seems to me it is the very same ball of wax in another guise. How many of our assumptions, that we think compulsory that everyone subscribe, are simply because we cannot or will not imagine an alternative…
Do we not need to gently but firmly shake one another awake… Wake up! The future is up to us, that expectation to the contrary are not going to end well for us.
Like Odysseus, it is up to us, to make a way to return to our home.
Hi Verna,
Thanks as always for your input and opinion. Greatly appreciated. In reading your words the old adage of the tree falling in the woods and the sound it does or doesn’t make comes to mind. Would Truth exist if people were not around to interpret it in alternative ways? Is nature itself subjective in its view of the world? My answer to these questions would be Yes to the first one and No to the second one. Cause and effect are science based. Newton told us about the consequences of a body in motion coming in contact with one that is stationary. This is something that is factual regardless of anyone being around to view this in real time. And unless the laws of physics have changed over time (always a possibility) than this was true 10 billions years ago and will be true ten billion years after humanity has disappeared.
As a life long non-believer (this term is less onerous than atheist) I’m reluctant to agree with the Presbyterian minister, and yet here I am, finding what he said to be relevant. On the other hand, Yuval Harari states in his book, Sapiens, that we have indeed made up the construct of a culture based on some ethereal sense of right and wrong. Even a pathway towards our extinction may be what’s best for nature in the long run, though we would decry such an outcome. I guess that ultimately, I want there to be some kind of guiding light (not religiously) but something we can hold onto that will allow us to progress, to evolve into something better and I tend to call that something, Truth. Who knows?
Tobin, if I understand your point, you aspire to a type of truth that either contains every perspective, or even no perspective(s) at all. I wonder if either of these paths wouldn’t cause us more distress than the current state of conflict/disagreement that is normal for us. Perhaps language is tripping us up, that “subjective” and “objective” are value laden in some unhelpful ways.
I have surmised on occasions that facts are recognized-qualified as a fixed feature of reality on account of a particular context that allows, or nudges me in the direction of that interpretation. Another individual, outside of my experienced context, may find my description of said fact, quite unintelligible, no matter my skill at communication.
I try to avoid dwelling on whether our species will become extinct, as it could go either way. I do think that we are here to care for one another, and to care for the earth. We need others, and the earth needs us to mindfully, delicately nurture, moreover to celebrate our membership with this planet. Knowledge – I’d lay odds that most knowledge is of a sort that is not amenable to proof. So much comes down to judgment, which is quite personal, and that’s where the challenge and where the fun lies.
i guess I am trying to say that a remedy for BS, a counter attack to toxic hype cannot be more facts, or even a greater receptivity to facts – but to risk, to double-down on the proposition that humans definitely are able to achieve more meaning and beauty than heretofore we’ve achieved, that saving this earth is worth whatever the cost.
Hmmm . . . I do think you and I have run into a small wall of language interpretation. I did not mean to imply that there is an ultimate truth to everything, a penultimate answer to all of our questions. I agree that our subjective nature will never allow for us to fully agree on specific meanings or to view issues in lock-step, regardless of any facts. What I do believe is that there is a truth that many if not most people ignore because the facts do not fit their own narrative. They want to force the round peg into the square hole.
If science tells us, with a certain exactitude, that an asteroid is hurtling towards earth and that we need to take action to modify the asteroid’s direction, I would like to think we would see that as a truism that can’t be disputed. But as we know, there would be many who would either tell us that it was God’s will or that science is just plain wrong and they don’t know what they’re talking about. I view our catastrophic ambivalence to climate change in much the same way as the asteroid (a metaphor that has been used ad nauseam). There is an absolute truth to the science of this situation and only through blind denial of facts can someone believe otherwise.
I’ve been doing a bit or research about next week’s Truth – Part II so I hope you’ll find it interesting with regard to how we might counter the flood of misinformation.
Ah! misinformation. I just had 24 minutes of my life fly past me. Perhaps this is information some will find useful. [If not, no problem just erasing.] I watched this YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcEIVsGyjNw It is very nicely done. Tells a compelling story illustrating plausible viewpoints. The arguments present is valuable content for any Philosopher. It was not made using AI, just stock photos. The narration is well written, descriptive, has good emphasis of points and pacing. The comments below show a high degree of agreement and admiration for the protagonist. [Except for a couple comments, buried down a level, requiring an extra click.]
At the very start of the video a disclaimer screen is splashed —for one second. This warning is repeated in the supplemental […more] material.
⚠️ Disclaimer: The stories presented on this channel are entirely fictional and crafted solely for entertainment. Any resemblance to real events, individuals, or situations is purely coincidental and unintentional. These narratives are not intended to depict, reference, or represent any actual occurrences, persons, or entities.
Is misinformation presented as entertainment still misinformation?
Does the disclaimer provide any mitigation?
If there was no disclaimer, would we not simply call this a “Lie.?
If this piece were presented as a purely theatrical production, without any reference to actual people, but only used to convey the situations and P.O.V.s, would we still reject this off-hand as misinformation?