Critical Thinking Series (Truth)
What we know, what we are told, and what exists.
. . .with Ethan.
There has been several attempts to define what we know as truth, but the true question is “Do we actually as individuals conform to these attempts to define, quantify and qualify truth, which as a matter of fact is more of an experience than an expression? Do we believe what we hear or see is the truth because we hear and see them and does this really portray truth as we are meant to understand it? Do we truly understand that truth remains absolute but in fact differs from one individual to another? These questions will be at the heart of our discussion today.
The dictionary defines truth as; “The true or actual state of a matter”, “conformity with fact or reality”, “a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like”, “an obvious or accepted fact”, etc. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/truth). I find these definitions enlightening yet lacking and I trust you will too if you try to compare each of them with what you truly conceive as truth. Individuals generally perceive truth and untruth as complementary, they tend to compare the concept of truth with that of “heads or tails”, they limit it to just two possibilities when in fact truth has endless possibilities, variations and outcomes. The truth you see and wish to make others believe is your perspective of the truth and hence just a fraction of the entire truth. Consequently, the fact that you possess evidence or proof that you are telling the truth which is completely contradictory or possibly even directly opposite to my argument does not entail that I am not telling the truth even though such evidences clearly certify that you are telling the truth.
The statement above although contradictory to what we already believe truth to be is however the true concept of truth when individual opinions and biases are filtered out and truth laid bare as truth; just because there is no vehicle parked outside the office right now doesn’t mean there was none parked outside the office some moments ago when I stepped outside, but I may share an opposite opinion with you when asked the very same question. Although some may argue that yours is the right opinion because it is immediately verifiable but what if a different vehicle pulls up outside the office within the course of our argument, can we say we are both wrong and right at the very same time? although this example is trivial and seemingly roundabout, it is meant to draw our attention to the fact that we cannot impose our experience as the general truth since others share other experiences which may not be same as ours but just as true. A better example to demonstrate this; one I will dwell much on, is the popular story of the sleeping elephant and the blind men who encountered various parts of the elephant and were later required to describe an elephant based on their individual encounter, they ended up giving diverse and conflicting descriptions reflecting the part of the elephant they were privileged to access based on their positioning at the time of the encounter. This illustration is enlightening, but there is more to it as we will discover from further analysis. The body of an elephant just like any other animal is continuous along its path; that is, you can make a complete continuous trace of the outer body curves, hence with patience and time one can be able to touch round the body of the elephant, unless one is ignorant of the fact that such continuity exist in which case they stop at the point where they encounter a form of discontinuity assuming it to be the end point.
On the other hand, maybe they have actually discovered by experience (which is by attempting to trace the elephant’s body) that the elephant is probably infinitely continuous and thus decided to limit themselves to accessing only part of the whole and make judgments based on that part, in other words they believed that their assumed infinite and continuous nature of the elephant’s body makes it impossible to comprehend the entire elephant hence they decided to settle with a little portion and try to use it to describe the entire elephant. I think we can all agree that they were also ignorant of the fact that it is not impossible to comprehend the true state of the elephant which is actually not infinite. It is fair though to note that it is as a result of lack of the sense of sight that they misjudged the true state of the elephant. This misjudgment however is not just as a result of sight deficiency but also of perspective, “a seeing man who stands right before the elephant is no better than a blind man touching the frontal part of the same elephant” since they both get to experience just a part of the whole from that perspective. As ridiculous as one may find the descriptions of those blind men, They were the unarguable truth to them, but a truth based on their experiences and level of understanding which limits what they are capable of comprehending. Now if we are to verify which is the truth among their diverse descriptions, we can either send a seeing man to verify that they are telling the truth, in which case they would have told the untruth because the seeing man has a higher understanding and a vantage perspective because of his ability to see or we can send another blind man to go and verify, who may as a matter of fact experience an entirely different part of the elephant and discredit all their opinions based on his own findings. so the true question is, can we as a matter of authority impose our opinions as the truth? do we say we are telling the truth because of what we know based on our experiences and perspective and possibly because such “truth” is supported and verified by people who share the same experiences and perspective with us? is there no possibility that there is more to the truth than what we all see from one perspective? Can we say we are advanced enough with supreme perspective and sufficient understanding to decide what truth is? Can we truly decide what truth is based on verifiability, verity, conformity, actual state or an obvious or accepted fact as defined by the dictionary? If we can answer these questions, then we have moved a step farther away from the crowd and further into a state where we can have a better perspective, an angle from where we can attempt to truly understand what truth is.
We all should know from today’s article that “No one has the absolute truth” there is no exact definition of path that all must follow to attain an understanding of the truth, hence each individual is entitled to his own opinion generated by his level of understanding, experience and perspective of things. Although we all are bound by the general laws of society which defines how we are to relate with others and in some cases with ourselves, we must realize that we cannot depend on others to tell us the truth about ourselves or try to generate a truth about us relative to others. It is our sole duty to discover for ourselves and by ourselves answers to our questions, THAT IS OUR TRUTH.
Lets continue this discussion, feel free to share your opinions.
