Some days the definition of truth seems elusive, more uncertainty in uncertain times.
The Truth Series – #1 The Philosophers
“You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.” In this oft-repeated line from the Gospel of John, truth is God. Through knowing God humans will be free from sin. In the secularized version now commonly used, truth is knowledge, which will free humans from various troubles in life. Both versions have a point, although the concept of truth feels a tad stale these days, perhaps due to a malaise brought on by too much fake news and opinion as fact, with no end in sight. Some days the very definition of truth seems elusive, more uncertainty in uncertain times.
I am rather late to the contemplation of truth. Philosophers since the glory days of the ancient world have wrestled the concept. Maybe they can help now? The ancient Greeks defined truth broadly as that which agrees with the facts or states what is the case. Right away though, they started nitpicking. Protagoras counseled that truth is relative to circumstances. Parmenides raised the distinction between opinion and truth. Plato demonstrated how a continuous process of the mind’s enlightenment leads from opinion to knowledge, the highest form of truth. Sounds good, but maybe the ancient Greeks are too ancient to matter in these metamodern and beyond days we inhabit. The chattering classes tell us that Denmark is super chic, boasting both hygge and free health care, so what sayeth Denmark’s most famous son, Soren Kierkegaard? He counseled that for, “. . . existing, striving, deciding persons” (oh, to deserve such a label) there is no preexisting truth waiting to be found. Further bursting the truth bubble, he insisted that, “The highest truth attainable for an Existing individual is simply an objective uncertainty held fast in the most passionate personal experience.” Hip, sure, but helpful? How about someone closer to home? William James, American psychologist extraordinaire cum spare time philosopher argued that the truth is made by an act of will, that ideas are made true by events. He also said that some disputes cannot be resolved if each party simply affirms that his or her views are true. That sounds familiar. Seeking a less theoretical truth? At some point – the Renaissance? the Scientific Revolution? the Enlightenment? - the world decided to conquer truth with science. Rigorous scientific research alone could produce objective truth. Very persuasive, but there is a but. Philosophers of the Frankfurt School argued that scientific objectivity is not exactly objective, but rather expresses the economic power structure and political ideals of the ruling class. Hard to disagree with the gentlemen from Frankfurt when modern scientists produce research results favorable to their industry sponsors and scholars rewrite history to put the latest #specialinterestgroup on the map, so let’s just say that different groups have different truths, even different scientific truths.
What to do with these different scientific truths? What if the truth is something we do not want to hear? For example, what if science showed that obesity is not genetic and really just the result of irresponsible behavior? Do we want a survey to tell us whether we would prefer a male or female firefighter be on duty the day we are stuck in a burning building? What if the results of scientific study do not conform to ideas of fairness or equity? Scientific rigor may give us the truth but maybe we only want it when it fits in with our picture of how the world should be. Do we limit the scope of science so it does not tell us a truth we do not want to believe? Choose a different truth? Go back to the philosophers? Karl Jaspers argued that science is beneath philosophy because it does not deal with the inner experiences of individual human beings. Jaspers insisted that humans must bring to scientific knowledge some additional reality, although humans tend to bring pesky biases along with their reality, taking us back to the well-trod ground of opinion. Raining on everyone’s parade, Richard Rorty advocated throwing out the notion of truth altogether and just getting on with it. Philosophers are still arguing today about the true definition of truth and where science fits into that definition, while we regular folk are left to muddle along as best we can. Muddle just might be the word for our current truth, making how to un-muddle the issue. Can we handle the truth, a truth that is not consistent with our world view? Will it set us free from the partisanship, anger, and doldrums to which we have succumbed? If truth is truly what we seek, perhaps we need to find a new place, or maybe an old place, to look?
Commentaires