17th
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. […abridged, but you should read the full thing]
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.)
I definitely appreciate the general spirit. The details are a bit off, though.
First of all, you’re right that “truth can function differently in different domains.” You can, in fact, go even further: many contemporary philosophers hold that the very concept of “truth” is domain-specific - not that there’s one such quality of ‘being true,’ but instead that there are many independent concepts used in different fields. Even though we use the same word - “true” - for all of them, according to this line of thought, we should really be saying ‘truth(physics)’ or ‘truth(math),’ ‘truth(ethics),’ etc.
However, you’re quite wrong to suggest that there is ‘one truth,’ even within the context of one such particular domain. Immediately comes to mind, of course, the position of pluralism in mathematics, according to which there are different axiomatic systems which produce contradictory but equally valid mathematical systems - for example, you can build up different arithmetics or set theories, with mutually incompatible results. If pluralism in set theory, for instance, is true, then there simply isn’t a notion of ‘truth’ for set theory - what’s true is context-specific in relation to the axioms you begin with, and there aren’t any independent means of arbitrating amongst the different systems.
Finally, your statement about art - your irritation at hearing (admittedly irritating) references to things like ‘the artist’s personal truth,’ etc - seems the most off. This is because few people would claim to be realists about aesthetics - that is, they don’t suppose that there is some objective state of facts that holds true in the domain. Instead, contemporary philosophy tends to largely take an antirealist stance on domains like aesthetics and moral values. That is, they don’t take it that there are truths about these domains independent of people’s attitudes, linguistic practices, etc. To make a claim about aesthetics isn’t to be invoking reference to some independent body of fact - instead, it can be taken as something like an expression of approval or disapproval. “This Monet is beautiful’ isn’t making a proposition that seeks to place the Monet into some objective list of Beautiful Objects - instead, it night be akin to saying “I like this Monet.” One can even go so far as to deny that these statement make propositions at all - “killing is wrong” can be taken as the equivalent of “killing - booo!” and “giving to charity is the right thing to do” can be taken as the nonpropositional equivalent “yay giving to charity.”
In this context, it seems like (obnoxious thought the phrase is, I’ll grant you that) saying “one’s own personal truth” is a reasonable philosophical position to take, at least in domains like aesthetics and morality.
