Questions, not answers, about truth
"What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonymies, anthropomorphisms…” –Nietzsche
This quote from Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900), a German philosopher and cultural critic, makes clear an uncomfortable reality of the relationship between truth and language. It is only through language that people can convey truth, but language is itself an abstraction, so using it to convey something as elusive and intangible as truth is a daunting proposition.
True truth
Truth, most people would agree, exists objectively. It sits outside of human interpretation as a kind of untouchable, absolute entity. Whether or not we recognize it or admit it, truth is true.
For some, the pursuit of truth is a lifetime calling. Philosophers, psychologists, religious scholars, and poets are professional truth-definers. In different ways, politicians, economists, journalists, and sociologists also try to uncover truth.
How can there be something in the human psyche that is commonly held but undefinable? How can people agree on the existence of something that no one can see, count, taste, touch, pin down, hear, or feel? The idea of truth should be impossible to talk about, since we can't exactly say what it is. Yet people talk about truth constantly.
Even though it might be impossible to get all of the truth-pursuers to agree on what truth is, let alone on one example of truth, it's still worth noting that all would agree (most likely) that truth exists.
Which brings us back to Nietzsche. He notes that we can't communicate without language, and that language is a poor conveyor of the real nature of truth. We resort to approximations or analogies (metonymy, metaphors, anthropomorphisms) to discuss truth. We never use actual truth to discuss truth.
This would be like talking about the temperature in a room by comparing it to ice, or to the sun, or to an ideal temperature, without ever using a thermometer. Our discussions of truth are comically skewed because we have no words that capture it. Our words, in fact, almost make things worse because they themselves are only representations, not reality.
Falsehood/deception/avoidance/misunderstanding
If we can say that we have an idea of what truth is (although we acknowledge the difficulties of putting the concept of truth into words), can we agree on its opposite? What is a lie?
Lies take truth and stand it on its head. If "day" is truth, then "night" is its opposite; if it's day and someone says it's night, that person is lying. But is this a good enough definition of the opposite of truth? If I type a word wrong, it's a typo, not a lie. When does a typo become deceptive? Are all lies deliberate, or are some lies mistakes?
Some lies are deliberate, well-planned, and reinforced: “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth,” is a law of propaganda often attributed to the Nazi Joseph Goebbels. This kind of intentional lie, we might think, is easy to spot, but it’s not. Lies can be worded so attractively and convincingly that we let them into our minds with no resistance. The repetition reinforces the lie, and the work of the propagandist is complete.
But sometimes what looks like a lie is not meant that way at all. Maybe the person does not have the right vocabulary to truthfully express what they mean or does not fully understand what they are observing due to cultural difference. This kind of lying is inadvertent, so is it a lie?
Then there is the practice of not telling all the truth, tailoring communication to one's own advantage. If a person leaves out aspects of the truth to avoid harming someone, we call it a white lie. Yes, it’s a lie, but it’s acceptable and even praiseworthy. Is it a lie to tell a partial truth?
What then is truth?
It’s apparent that trying to define truth by calling it the opposite of lies does not answer Nietzsche’s question.
What are we to do? Many people when faced with ambiguity will retreat into their corners (to use a boxing metaphor). If we can't find words we can all agree on to express such basic ideas as truth and its opposite, we may get frustrated and become more entrenched in our own ideas.
Then truth becomes "my truth" and its opposite (in all its forms and guises) becomes lies. We cease to communicate and lapse into accusation and distortion. We are vulnerable to propaganda that supports our view of truth.
Most people, I believe, want to preserve at least the concept of truth. It's reassuring and comforting, in the face of confusion and ill will from others, to know that truth is out there somewhere. Truth will justify and vindicate our actions.
This is a paradox: we want truth but can only get at it through language, which has almost no ability to convey truth with precision and accuracy. Our great human gift, language, fails us. Yet we can agree on this: truth is. We just don't know exactly what it is.
This quote from Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900), a German philosopher and cultural critic, makes clear an uncomfortable reality of the relationship between truth and language. It is only through language that people can convey truth, but language is itself an abstraction, so using it to convey something as elusive and intangible as truth is a daunting proposition.
True truth
Truth, most people would agree, exists objectively. It sits outside of human interpretation as a kind of untouchable, absolute entity. Whether or not we recognize it or admit it, truth is true.
For some, the pursuit of truth is a lifetime calling. Philosophers, psychologists, religious scholars, and poets are professional truth-definers. In different ways, politicians, economists, journalists, and sociologists also try to uncover truth.
How can there be something in the human psyche that is commonly held but undefinable? How can people agree on the existence of something that no one can see, count, taste, touch, pin down, hear, or feel? The idea of truth should be impossible to talk about, since we can't exactly say what it is. Yet people talk about truth constantly.
Even though it might be impossible to get all of the truth-pursuers to agree on what truth is, let alone on one example of truth, it's still worth noting that all would agree (most likely) that truth exists.
Which brings us back to Nietzsche. He notes that we can't communicate without language, and that language is a poor conveyor of the real nature of truth. We resort to approximations or analogies (metonymy, metaphors, anthropomorphisms) to discuss truth. We never use actual truth to discuss truth.
This would be like talking about the temperature in a room by comparing it to ice, or to the sun, or to an ideal temperature, without ever using a thermometer. Our discussions of truth are comically skewed because we have no words that capture it. Our words, in fact, almost make things worse because they themselves are only representations, not reality.
Falsehood/deception/avoidance/misunderstanding
If we can say that we have an idea of what truth is (although we acknowledge the difficulties of putting the concept of truth into words), can we agree on its opposite? What is a lie?
Lies take truth and stand it on its head. If "day" is truth, then "night" is its opposite; if it's day and someone says it's night, that person is lying. But is this a good enough definition of the opposite of truth? If I type a word wrong, it's a typo, not a lie. When does a typo become deceptive? Are all lies deliberate, or are some lies mistakes?
Some lies are deliberate, well-planned, and reinforced: “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth,” is a law of propaganda often attributed to the Nazi Joseph Goebbels. This kind of intentional lie, we might think, is easy to spot, but it’s not. Lies can be worded so attractively and convincingly that we let them into our minds with no resistance. The repetition reinforces the lie, and the work of the propagandist is complete.
But sometimes what looks like a lie is not meant that way at all. Maybe the person does not have the right vocabulary to truthfully express what they mean or does not fully understand what they are observing due to cultural difference. This kind of lying is inadvertent, so is it a lie?
Then there is the practice of not telling all the truth, tailoring communication to one's own advantage. If a person leaves out aspects of the truth to avoid harming someone, we call it a white lie. Yes, it’s a lie, but it’s acceptable and even praiseworthy. Is it a lie to tell a partial truth?
What then is truth?
It’s apparent that trying to define truth by calling it the opposite of lies does not answer Nietzsche’s question.
What are we to do? Many people when faced with ambiguity will retreat into their corners (to use a boxing metaphor). If we can't find words we can all agree on to express such basic ideas as truth and its opposite, we may get frustrated and become more entrenched in our own ideas.
Then truth becomes "my truth" and its opposite (in all its forms and guises) becomes lies. We cease to communicate and lapse into accusation and distortion. We are vulnerable to propaganda that supports our view of truth.
Most people, I believe, want to preserve at least the concept of truth. It's reassuring and comforting, in the face of confusion and ill will from others, to know that truth is out there somewhere. Truth will justify and vindicate our actions.
This is a paradox: we want truth but can only get at it through language, which has almost no ability to convey truth with precision and accuracy. Our great human gift, language, fails us. Yet we can agree on this: truth is. We just don't know exactly what it is.
Originally published in “Writing Wisdom,” by Sara Tusek, December 28, 2019
Reprinted here Sept. 24, 2023
Comments
Post a Comment