Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Truth Doesn’t Matter Anymore
The title of this post is not just a philosophical statement. It is a living, breathing admonition of our culture, one that once fundamentally guided our decisions, our relationships, and our belief systems. Truth was the foundation of our education, of governance, and business. We all knew that it was not embraced by everyone—the liars, drama queens show up everywhere—but I believed they were the exceptions rather than the rule.
No more. And let me tell you why I find this fact deeply disheartening.
Just this morning on my walk I listened to the Ricochet podcast, High Noon, with Inez Stepman. I like her interviews because they are thoughtful and intelligent. This time she was interviewing Professor Robbie P. George of Princeton University, and I enjoyed his sharing his early education and understanding of the importance of knowledge for its own sake; he also spoke about his priority in searching for truth. So far, so good. Then he mentioned that one of his best friends was Cornel West, who is a professor on the far Left, a self-described Democratic Socialist. I am quite certain that they have found a way to bridge or overcome their differences; I have seen West interviewed, and he is a thoughtful and reasonable person. But I found that I was annoyed and highly skeptical about George and West’s relationship. Then I realized the reason.
Did they both believe in the importance of truth?
Now I have no way to answer that question and wouldn’t even try, because I expected that my reaction to their friendship, much more visceral than I would anticipate, was not about the two of them. It was about me.
More specifically, it was about a relationship that I occasionally refer to on Ricochet, because I struggle with it. Like George and West, my friend and I are both religious people; I’m the conservative, she’s on the Left. I refuse to talk politics with her primarily, I thought, because she is not well-informed on the topics we would discuss. She doesn’t do her homework, relies on anecdotes, the evening news, and a liberal newspaper. I finally realized today that was not a complete description of my frustration toward her; instead, I’m saddened because ultimately, she is not interested in the truth. For the record, I’m not saying that I have the complete truth and she doesn’t have any. But I’m especially disappointed because in so many ways she is a loving, compassionate and wise—yes, wise—person. She would be appalled to be thought of as lying, but she doesn’t so much lie as for any number of reasons, she chooses to avoid the truth.
Now I must say that I realize that “truth” can seem to be a moving target. This explanation of truth spoke to me:
According to the coherence theory of truth, a thing is more likely to be true if it fits comfortably into a large and coherent system of beliefs. It remains that the system could be a giant fiction, entirely detached from reality, but this becomes increasingly unlikely as we investigate, curate, and add to its components—assuming, and it is quite an assumption, that we are operating in good faith, with truth, rather than self-preservation or -aggrandizement, as our aim. Thus conceived, truth is not a property, or merely a property, but an attitude, a way of being in the world.
I believe that most people on the Left have created a “giant fiction,” and are unwilling to investigate and test their assumptions. In other words, they are living a lie.
We all create our own reality; that is how we make sense of our world. But we only live productive and satisfying lives, if we experience the following:
Truth tends to lead to successful action. In that much, truth has instrumental value. But truth also has intrinsic value. Given the choice between a life of limitless pleasure as a brain in a vat and a genuine human life along with all its pain and suffering, most people opt for the latter.
If we love our lives, with all the suffering and disappointment we may encounter, we are more likely to be living in truth. But when we try to “live lies,” desperately trying to stabilize the fragile and weakened walls of reality, we can’t be truly happy at the most basic level. We may tell ourselves that we are, but that is just one more lie to add to the heap.
* * * *
I’m struggling with this discovery, and wondering if it is reasonable and true. And if it is true, where does that leave me regarding friendship? I anticipate that I will continue my relationship with my friend, knowing that at some level I have relegated it to a more superficial status. But it will be difficult. I love my friend for so many other reasons. And I know that I am not always aware of the facts, of the truth. But I’d like to think that I am a truth-seeker and truth-teller.
At least, that’s what I aspire to be.
[photo courtesy of unsplash.com]
Published in Culture
Stand up for love, stand up for truth, stand up for natural law, be an American in principle and in fact.
Beautifully said. Thanks, Mark.
I’ve said for a decade that “truth no longer matters, facts no longer matter, words no longer matter — only power matters, and we do not have it.”
This does not mean that all is lost. It means that many of our supposed tools are actually useless, and damaging because we divert efforts into things which no longer matter; to which category we may now add “votes.”
On the other hand, the likelihood that all is lost is at an all-time high, because the likelihood of us becoming effective is at an all-time low.
Our society is so specialized now that most of what we make our own in terms of information depends almost entirely on our estimation of the credibility of the people we are taking that information from. I can’t conduct my own science experiments so I am dependent on those who do.
There seem to be no sources that are perfectly authoritative.
In an interesting development in the modern era, we have access to and are surrounded by more “information” than ever before in human history. But there is so much of it that we have gone back to mythmaking.
Whatever your friend believes at this moment is the whole truth to her. And she is devoted to it. And she thinks you’re the one with the wrong set of facts.
I really enjoy reading copy where the author says, “For the purposes of this discussion, let’s assume A, B, and C are true.” That structure creates a way to evaluate something usefully.
In 2018, the Pulitzer Prize committee gave the Prize to the staffs of the New York Times and the Washington Post for their “deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage” … of a hoax.
Im still waiting for corrections.
The problem with Truth is that is often makes us uncomfortable, starting with the Truth of a God and then working on down to us.
As a therapist, I can tell you, people run from the Truth of themselves first. The running from the Truth of the world is what comes second. And I am not talking about facts here. That is secondary to Truth of ourselves. The Truth that we are fallen, we feel inferior, that we are scared and helpless, that we feel unlovable and have difficultly loving others. We are, each of us, capable of great, great evil. We run and run from that Truth and in doing so miss out on the rest of it:
Each of us is unique being, never seen before and never to be seen again. We are capable of tenderness, love, compassion, creativity, and connection in ways of no other species on Earth. We are builders. We are make in God’s image. If we run from the Truth of our shadows, we must also run from the light of ourselves. And so, we run into world, unable to see any Truth out there because we flee any light, lest it show us in shadow.
We have to stop seeking endless comfort. Comfort is not the same as peace. The more we seek comfort the less peace we will have. If we embrace the uncomfortably of Truth, we can find peace.
I don’t recall exactly when, but it was years ago, acting out Diogenes that I learned the relatively true fact that truth is relative. And that, my friend, is just a hard fact.
As you probably know, the wiser action would be to find those authorities who are willing to go through all that information and have earned our trust. It’s hard to know who to trust anymore, since our “experts” lie with impunity. But that is the work we need to do is figure out who we believe has done their homework, is not into myths and believes in truth as we do.
I like almost all that you say, Bryan. I’m just not as cynical about all of us being being capable of “great, great evil.” I guess it depends on what we mean by capable, doesn’t it? But I choose to believe that we are all capable of evil, and with hard work, we can find the light instead.
And how do you know that is true, Chuck? Or is it only relatively true? I believe there is an absolute truth, but that G-d is likely the only one who knows it. We can only aspire to discover it and live it.
When we cave in to the darkness, @bdb, we choose to live with hopelessness. We might as well be lumps of poop. I think I’d rather not give up, and keep calling out to find our way.
A very impressive comment, Bryan. Your patients are blessed to have you as a therapist.
Our own perception of truth may, in fact, be relative. Truth is not, or it wouldn’t be Truth.
It is not living lies, if you believe it to be true. Apparently, by choosing our news sources and friends, we can choose our own truth to live.
Susan,
The ordinary people of Nazi Germany engaged in great, great evil, complicity or explicitly. Did Germany have more than its fair share of monsters? How about the people of Japan in WWII? The horrible abuses by their armies. Or what about America acts of evil in other wars. We lionize our soldiers, but sometimes, young men pulled up and sent to war find their darker selves.
I think Dr. Peterson tells it well:
Acknowledge our own evil, and acknowledge its darkest depths. That is how you know how to be whole.
(Your happy face works well here!) Oh, it’s true. Just ask anybody. Well, relatively anybody not on Ricochet.
But, as I’ve quoted elsewhere and am persuaded that it is wholly and perfectly and eternally and unchangeably true, “God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?” – Nu. 23:19
Thank you, Jim.
And Thank you, Susan. You mostly agreed with me.
I blame Oprah and her ilk, who popularized the phrase, “My Truth”. The idea that everyone has their own truth, and that everyone’s (except for conservatives’) truth is equally valid, is astounding in its banal perniciousness.
@susanquinn, Katie notice and related post up: https://ricochet.com/1066874/the-diminishing-value-of-fact-and-the-antidote/
” . . . to find those authorities who are willing to go through all that information and have earned our trust,” and that’s the point I was trying to make. That’s what the Left has done and what the Right has done, and we’re not using the same sources.
I don’t see how we will come to an agreement on what the “truth” is. That said, if life is a trial and we are the jury, perhaps we will be able to find the truth if we put the experts and the witnesses and the evidence in the same room for ten minutes. :-)
If you think you possess a great truth there are four possibilities:
The first is the mindset of tyrannies no matter how initially well-intentioned.
The second is true and possibly virtuous but incomplete.
The third is where we should all be in a sincere shared pursuit of truth and the acceptance that our own grasp of it is often tenuous.
The fourth sounds like a form of tolerance but usually gives way to the first without understanding why–if nothing matters then power does. People talk about “my truth” then wonder where all the freedoms went.
What I understand is that in the early 1900’s Germany was seen as the epitome of culture and refinement. Under the Russians who fell for communism, Germany was thought to be immune from totalitarianism. After hyperinflation, and demagoguery, that ended.
This is where it gets difficult in practice. I don’t think that there’s such a thing as “natural law” as the term is intended (though I do agree that it exists as a description of a certain position). I think that the philosophy of natural law is a serious error. So I don’t think natural law is a fact, though I generally agree with the conclusions reached by its proponents.
So right at the start, the three of us — me, Susan, and Mark — who reasonably closely aligned on many issues of morality and politics, have a significant disagreement about the “facts.” It’s a pickle.
I think that fundamental issues of morality, world view, and politics cannot be determined by reason. Absent divine revelation, I don’t see how they can be regarded as “facts.” And people sure don’t agree about revelation.
You don’t have too. The Self -Evident Truths of the American way have been empirically demonstrated to work. It has been abandoning these that have led to our national problems.
You don’t have to believe in revelation to see that a society needs a spiritual center to survive.
On your main point, Susan, your own discovery of this problem, I don’t know if I can help. I’ve known about this problem for a long time, and I don’t have a solution that seems persuasive to anyone. I don’t think that I can claim any special credit for earlier discovery, as it’s probably due the coincidence that my parents were Simon & Garfunkel fans from my birth. They tell me that they used to play this music for me while I was in my crib. So early on, I must have absorbed the lyrics to The Boxer:
“Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”
It turns out that Jesus told us about this problem long before Paul (Simon) and Art. The other Paul, the Apostle, wrote about it extensively in the book of Romans.
You might find Jonathan Haidt’s work helpful in this area. Have you read The Righteous Mind? He also has some lectures available on YouTube discussing his points. It’s essentially the issue of confirmation bias. To paraphrase Haidt, and assuming that I’m remembering his argument correctly, the problem is:
The alternative, though, is quite destabilizing. We have to have some world view in order to function in the world. We can’t spend all of our time questioning everything, or we would be paralyzed and unable to act in the world.
The fact that (mostly) undamaged people like us instinctively agree on these kinds of things is the only real evidence of natural law. My post a week or so ago was based on this quote from Saul Bellow:
The attempt to formalize that intuition by philosophers usually winds up being foreign to the implicit truth they are trying to capture and define just like a lot of other philosophical and theological adventures wind up being unhelpful.
I agree with your “possibilities,” @oldbathos, including and especially the third one. I believe we have an obligation to try to share the truth, and be open to other people’s understandings, when they are open to having a discussion. That’s how we learn and grow.
We are all vulnerable, to some degree to evil influences, and I believe we have an obligation to make wise choices.