Essays‎ > ‎

"Relative" Truth

I am hearing this entirely too often these days

“The truth is relative”  Ironically this is about as untrue a statement as can be uttered. I have found that the truth is only relative to those who loath it. First lets explore what truth is.

It has been said that if you tell a lie enough times it becomes the truth. This is of-course not true. If you tell a lie enough times it is still a lie, just because you may have told it enough times to get a lot of people to believe the lie as truth, does not make it fact. It is still a lie, and the people who believe that lie are simply victims of coerced delusional thought.

As soon as we define truth as relative we completely ignore the definition of truth and hitch our wagons to the train of deception.

From Websters

Main Entry: truth

Pronunciation: \ˈtrüth\

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural truths  \ˈtrüthz, ˈtrüths\

Etymology: Middle English trewthe, from Old English trēowth fidelity; akin to Old Englishtrēowe faithful

Date: before 12th century

1 a archaic : fidelity, constancy b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance

2 a (1) : the state of being the case : fact (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts :actuality (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics>c : the body of true statements and propositions

3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality b chiefly British: true 2 c : fidelity to an original or to a standard

4 capitalized Christian Science : god

in truth : in accordance with fact : actually


Anybody see any reference to truth being relative? No, what you see is DEFINITE terms such as FACT, ACTUALITY, FIDELITY.  (and surprisingly enough the word God)

Defining truth as relative serves to make it illusive. So, why the popularity of statements such as “truth is relative”?  I could easily go down the road of believing that the purpose of this statement is to make truth elusive, but that would be swimming in the same narcissistic, sophomoric cesspool of deceit (and conceit) from which this drivel was spawned.

Instead, Lets take it in context. I have heard this statement uttered in a few popular situations. National debate on controversial subjects such as climate change, socialism, the effectiveness or cost of health care reform, etc. These are the more prevalent and obvious subjects that invite the concept of truth being relative. However in these instances, the truth seems to be only relative to those who have an agenda that is not consistent with FACT.  

The example of relative truth in national debate is only a symptom of a greater erosion of thought.  If a concept is not proven, than it is not truth and should in fact be defined and accepted simply as theory. All arguments based on that concept then are in fact by their very nature theoretical arguments instead of factual arguments. Since I am after the truth, I will shy away from the popularity of arguing theory as truth.

Outside the scope of political gamesmanship, I hear the term often. Usually uttered by a person in great denial of reality as it pertains to some personal issue, or event. The truth threatens a certain schema,  and therefor must be relegated by a selfish ego as relative. This of-course has the net effect of entrenching the utterer in continued ignorance. This is often referred to as denial, and is painfully obvious to anyone who is so bold as to define truth within the confines of actuality. But is never obvious to the person being victimized by their own denial.

Their are so many concepts and ideas that each of us face on a daily basis which either challenge truth, or are impossible to prove. Some people have taken the low road and developed a concept that something is their truth, like somehow they get to pick and choose what is and is not truth.

So, how do we prove truth? Sometimes, in fact most of the time,  we can not logically and definitively prove something is true, keep in mind that this does not make the same thing un-true. Something may be statistically consistent, Unfortunately to our quest for truth, statistical consistency more often than not leads to an actual truth that is unrelated or worse yet, contradictory  to the original theory. i.e. flipping a coin has two possible, seemingly random outcomes. Theoretically flipping a coin should produce 50% heads and 50% tails. Statistically however, flipping a coin 100 times will almost never produce n even distribution of randomness ever, even over  a million flippings. So, the actual truth derived from the test of truth by flipping a coin a million times will only prove randomness itself is random.

No, you do not get to use that as a basis for the idea that their is no ultimate truth. The ultimate truth is in fact that their really is ultimate truth, our ego’s simply will not let us see it.  (Prove I am wrong)

Okay, so that was a digression. My real point was that statistics prove very little truth as to the validity of theory. Statistics can only prove a tendency, or a trend. a prudent person may latch on to a tendency or a trend and use it to shape their own perception, and maybe even influence their actions but should never arrogantly define a tendency or a trend as their truth.  Furthermore, it is self defeating to latch on to the opposite of a tendency as ones own truth simply for the sake of being contradictory.


Where we really loose sight of truth is when our ego’s rile against it based on emotional impulses. i.e. accepting something that I don’t believe just because it is fact, threatens my world view, whereby threatening my ego, which at its most basic machination is a self centered desire to be right. So, the fear of being wrong taints ones ability to see and accept the actual truth.


Perhaps truth threatens something that I have purported as truth to others. If I feel ashamed because I have believed and told others a lie, (even if I didn’t know it was a lie) that does not obviate my responsibility to the truth. Sometimes what I believe to be true is consistent with actual truth, and other times it is not. If I perport something as truth, it is my responsibility to remain vigilant to that truth. If I am proven wrong, than it is my responsibility to accept that and modify my perception to be inline with truth.

Ones impulse is to defend ones position with ones perception instead of admitting that ones perception may be flawed, and exploring the implications of actual fact. If one wishes to increase ones odds of understanding and accepting and purporting the truth, one must remove one self and ones perception from the equation. One can only do this by opening ones mind to a more universal perspective. i.e I must not only learn from my own experience, I must also digest the experience of others.

Truth, is a logical construct, NOT an emotional one. 2+2 = 4 that is a fact. No amount of emotion will change that fact, even if a twisted mind does not want to accept that 2+2=4 it is still an indisputable fact. If my mind wants 2+2 to equal 5. it still equals 4. if my truth is anything but FACT, or ACTUALITY, or outside of reality, then my truth is in fact a delusion.

The proposed relativity of truth is often encountered when in a discussion about “open mindedness,” while open mindedness is a noble concept, it is too often used as a refuge for those who wish to contrive a denial of obvious truth..

Open mindedness should be the path that leads to the truth, not a lofty ideal used to derail the truth once found. When I was three years old, I was open minded enough to explore the idea that 2+2 may equal something other than 4, But today, in acceptance of the actual truth, my mind is closed to the idea, and to further debate on the subject.

It is very important that a prudent person be open minded enough to allow their ego to recognize a tendency as a potential truth instead of just blindly ignoring it or worse yet abhorring) it simply because it may point to an unpleasant truth. I think most reasonable people would agree that sometimes (perhaps more often than not) the actual truth is not consistent with our schema, and therefore irritating to our ego. Maturity, would dictate that one must transcend the tendency to hold onto falsehood simply because the inverse of that falsehood (the truth) is not consistent with our world view.

Understanding, and accepting truth requires humility. The constructs of truth within my mind are imperfect because they rely on my imperfect perception, which is a product of my unique (non-universal) experience. Each of my personal experiences that make up a particular perception are tainted further by other imperfect perceptions, and so on and so on ad-infinitum.

My truth (yet another deception)
Serving the illusion that everybody has their own truth is further detrimental to the constant of actual truth. My truth does not exist. My perception exists but it is far from a whole picture of the truth. This does not make truth relative. It simply separates perfect truth from my imperfect perception.

All people must live by a system of ideals,  values, and principals. They protect the people around us, from us.These are not however personal truths,  if they were, and truth was relative, then they would change at the will of my ego, and that would be detrimental to the health and well being of the people around me.

I have some ideals, principals, and values. I could easily absolve myself (and have at times) of the responsibility of living up to them by calling them my truth. Because there exists no such thing as my truth and because any concept that I define as my truth is subject to the whims of my ego, anytime one of those values, principals or ideals is found to be in conflict with my selfish (ego) desire, I could simply ignore it. and perhaps change my truth.

The Buddhists say that truth is right view. If truth is relative than, then, right must also be relative, and if right is relative than it is subject to the imperfect perceptions and hedonistic actions of self. Defining truth as relative, opens a great chink in the armor of right, through which the evils of ego will march unchallenged.

Do you see where this all ends folks? Do you understand that when we give up truth as a constant we give up the only true weapon that we have against evil?

Do you see that by defining truth as relative, we cease to challenge the evil within ourselves?


 
Comments