If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything. – Mark
TwainThe truth is highly overrated. – kgh
A Variety of Veracity
Ken Hurley
The question "What is truth?" has confounded philosophers, theologians, scientists, lawyers, politicians, you, and others since before the first lie was told, which was likely by an ancient Greek spouse who replied, “I'm fine” in an effort to avoid the discomfort of the truth. To understand the varieties of truths involves perspectives, encompassing epistemology, ontology, and the great but subjective experience of reality. Since there is no single, universally accepted answer — the truth is highly overrated. Yet, a worthwhile and respected quest.
Understanding that our perceptions are all we have, suggests that any effort at defining ‘truth,’ proclaiming things to be true, is relative to our place in time. To say, the ‘truth’ is highly overrated does not also say there is nothing that is true. That’s false.
People who claim to know the ‘truth’ seem to be less troublesome than those who claim to be ‘true-believers.’ All we can do is offer a perception from what we can glean from our perspective, which includes all the stuff we can cram into our brain and process through our thoughts from where we sit in time. There is a reason people are reluctant to define ‘truth’ — they understand any absolute definition is lame, nearly meaningless, and would prefer to rely on the perceived understanding of others. Watching the struggles of others in their approach to what they ‘believe’ is the ‘truth’ offers one some absurd yet entertaining enjoyment. Chemtrails, black helicopters, moon landing, hollow Earth, Bigfoot, Zombie Apocalypse, Queen Elizabeth I was a man, to name some ridiculous falsehoods that masquerade as truths for some. Of course, the act of discovering ‘truths’ can provide education too. Yet, sometimes one may fall into an eye-glazed numbness while tussling with what is ‘truth.’
“Do you solemnly swear that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?” This is what a witness, who has made a commitment to tell the ‘truth,’ is asked to state prior to offering sworn testimony as evidence in court. One must swear to tell the ‘truth’ even if you’re mistaken, or worse, willfully lie. Despite swearing to tell the truth, sworn eyewitness testimony isn’t reliable. Especially when those witnesses get older. Age can blur memory, but surprisingly, age can also bring a resolute confidence in our ability to believe we're telling the ‘truth’ even if our confidence is faulty or delusional.
Here’s one definition of ‘truth’: That which resonates as known to be fact, correct, and absent of lies.
I am aware there may be dozens of theoretical approaches to ‘truth’ from a variety of well known and respected humans including: Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, Hegel, Aquinas, Schopenhauer, Kripke, Heidegger, Nietzsche, cab drivers, deli owners, and you.
There are also dozens of theories relative to the the varieties of ‘truths’ that have evolved or devolved through the ages, including: Absolute, Relative, Correspondence, Consensus, Pragmatic, Constructivist, Minimalist, Performative, Coherence, Redundancy, Biblical, and Half.
A solid understanding of ‘truth’ is so desired, so sought after by so many people, yet so devoid of consensus, the entire notion of the ‘truth’ becomes suspect. Since there are so many different ideas of how we should approach discerning the ‘truth,’ is it little wonder that the ‘truth’ has become diluted by the so-called ‘thinkers’ of the day, rendering examples of ‘truths’ and attempts at definitions mostly temporal.
There are an unknown number of things once thought to be true that we have later said, “Whoopsie, my bad,” including: The earth is flat, rocks turn into lichen, sun revolves around the earth, life cannot survive in boiling hot temperatures, a child's sex is solely determined by the mother, smoking is good for asthmatics, no need for a doctor to wash his hands or instruments, Pluto is a planet, the sound barrier was actually a barrier through which we could not pass, tongues have different areas of taste sensors, the Pope is infallible, and one of my favorites — The brain is not a source of thought. "This laxe pithe or marrow in man's head shows no more capacity for thought than a Cake of Sewet or a Bowl of Curds." Henry More, a prominent seventeenth-century British philosopher, uttered this mutter in 1652. I believe his statement is relative to people he knew personally. Furthermore, there are supposedly biblical truths known as the Gospel Truth, including: The Bible is the word of God which, in part, instructs its reader as follows: 1 Timothy 2:12 “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” And, Jeremiah 19:9 “I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another’s flesh because their enemies will press the siege so hard against them to destroy them.” And, 1 Peter 2:18-20 “Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the forward. For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? But if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.” And, Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with a man, as with a woman: it is abomination.” Then there's the controversy determining which date should be the holiest day in the Christian Bible, Easter. The dilemma was settled by looking at the moon. The first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox — that's the date Jesus arose from the dead. Oh, and the first woman was born from a man's rib. That male egotistical patriarchal misogyny is unrivaled. Truths? I think not.
Knowing what we do about what we once thought to be true and factual — that truths are subject to change, why should we believe that what we claim to understand today as ‘truth’ won’t be subjected to tomorrow’s correction with the acquisition of new information? There seems to be a demonstrated pattern that today’s truth is often tomorrow’s apology. Although, I offer no apology for all those who believe they possess reason, logic, and a method, scientific or otherwise, to discern the ‘truth.’ Mostly, what we have here though, is a failure to understand that ‘rationalization’ often masquerades as ‘truth’.
Moreover, there is the problem of the popular scientists of today, who, with some offhand remarks that are occasionally quoted, belie what I posit. Neil deGrasse Tyson has said, “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” That is a half-truth. Science is also subject to tomorrow’s correction. Ask Pluto. The planet, not the dog.
There are even those folks who make a distinction of truths based on capitalization — the truth v, The Truth. As if capitalization makes The Truth proper and authoritative. So how about this, the tRUTh, or THE TRUTH, or thE tRuTH.
It may be reasonable to alter our shouts of glee, that instead of proclaiming, “Eureka! I have discovered the ‘truth’!” We offer a more honest shout, “Eureka! I have discovered a new deeply held opinion subject to change with or without notice!” You reek of wanting more. I recommend reading Late Night Thoughts on Listening to Mahler’s Ninth Symphony by Lewis Thomas. A Short History of Nearly Everything, by Bill Bryson. George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel García Márquez. Aristotle's Metaphysics. Plato’s The Republic. William James’ Pragmatism. Harry Frankfurt's, On Bullshit. And, select passages of the Internet.
What we accept or reject as ‘truth’ determines the speed at which our civilization evolves.
And that’s the god's honest truth about ‘truth.’
:::::::::::::::::::;
