Truth is not multiple
I wish truth was a holy word. I wish we were more reverential when talking about truth. Talking about truth should be a little like talking about a god: we should do so only rarely, and when we do, on the assumption that we’re only barely worthy, that we are speaking about something that’s above us and that we can never fully understand.
I’m not advocating a mysticism about truth. Truth is not supernatural, or literally holy. But I like truth, I think truth is in some sense sacred (in whatever sense you want to assign to the word in a non-religious context). I think much talk about truth is sloppy and plain rude. (I’m personifying truth a little here, but only for rhetorical purposes. Rest assured, I don’t think of Truth as a person. It’s not True that Truth has personhood — it’s a metaphor.) I think a lot of talk and writing about truth desecrates it.
“Your truth”. “My truth”. “Speak to your inner truth”. “Express what is true for you”. Especially when it comes to art, there’s a lot of talk about “personal truths”, that every person’s “truth” is somehow “valid”. This talk disrespects Truth (the metaphorical truth personified). It divests Truth of meaning. It hollows out Truth. It’s the worship of appearances.
Truth is a torny philosophical issue. I’ve written before about how truth apparently can function differently in different domains. But let’s be clear: in any given domain, there is one truth about every issue of fact. When you say “my truth” or “what is true for me”, you’re not talking about truth. You should be saying “what appears to me to be true”, “my subjective experience”, “my personal feelings and beliefs regarding…” It sounds like an article of faith: Truth is not multiple. (In fact I modelled that on Maimonides’s statement about the Jewish conception of god: “God is not multiple.”) But it is, dare I say it, true.
Truths in one domain don’t contradict other truths in that domain. If they did, that would empty the domain of meaning. Logically, there is a rather simple way of proving absolutely anything from a contradiction. Thus, for a domain to be meaningful — science, say, or ethics — Truth cannot be multiple. If we are to say anything at all about how the world operates, we need a Truth that doesn’t disagree with itself.
We should be very careful when speaking about Truth, particularly in making the distinction between a belief, experience, or appearance of something and the facts surrounding that thing. On the other hand, precisely to protect Truth’s sanctity, we should be more liberal in calling each other liars. If they weren’t so sad, the contortions journalists and politicians will go through to avoid calling anyone a liar or admitting to a lie would be hilarious. A lie, i.e., knowingly stating a falsehood, is a lie, not a “misunderstanding”, “misspeaking”, “misrepresenting the truth”, or simply something you “said”, which is what journalists usually report. “‘The moon is made of cheese’, Mr. Anon said. Now, on to the weather…” When the brouhaha about the idiot who yelled “You Lie!” at Obama was going on, I found it kind of refreshing. Maybe it wasn’t the time or place, and maybe Obama wasn’t lying, and maybe this was a guy who would insist that his opponent was lying even on issues they agree on, but it’s refreshing to see politicians actually using the word “lie”. I wish politicians would start calling each other liars more often. Not without sound reasoning backing up the claim, but out of the respect for Truth and when in possession of evidence that shows Truth to be lied about, I want to see presidents actually yelling, sneering “LIAR!!” at each other. Now that would be respect for Truth.
There seems to be a misunderstanding between perspective and truth. Perspective is often a matter not of the truth about some issue but about people’s feelings about it. Different perspectives are not different, equally “valid” “truths”. Different perspectives are usually one of these two things: either, there is some factual issue and different people have experienced and felt different things about it, but there remains one truth about what really happened; or different perspectives are really different ways to see the exact same thing, in which case different statements are really equivalent ways of stating the same truth. In either case, Truth is not multiple.
Truth is a highly useful word, and a highly useful concept. If people keep using “truth” to mean different perceptions of or different but equivalent perspectives on the same factual issue, we’ll need another word to refer to the original concept. And if calling each other on lies in public discourse is considered rude, how are we ever going to have 1) an honest, truth-serving public debate or 2) teach people to respect Truth? This isn’t merely word rage, because I’m less interested in people using or abusing the word “truth” and more in misconceptions about the concept it’s supposed to refer to. I fear that contradictory and vague use of the word reflects contradictory and vague understanding of the concept, which is a shame.
I suppose I’m opening myself up to a ton of misunderstandings and easy jokes if I say I’m a devout believer in Truth and its sanctity. But I’m going to say it anyway: I’m a devout believer in Truth and its sanctity. I wish “truth” was holier than it appears to be today. (I don’t believe it ever was — I don’t think the misunderstandings are due to postmodernism or modernism or industrialization or capitalism or socialism or even academic wankery.)
