The concept of TRUTH: unvarnished, unbiased, unalloyed actual, real, provable TRUTH… is a commodity upon which the greatest philosophies are built or related to. So far in human history, no one has been able to connect for more than brief periods, to pure truth. This is not to belay the claims of strong connections to truth; there are millions of those, but they seem to be temporary. Moreover, each claim is subject to language and the meaning of words, not to overlook cultural beliefs of both claimant and listener. It is uncommon that a new “revelation” of truth will actually change cultural or other long-held beliefs. Columbus didn’t prove or reveal that the Earth is round – many already knew those things – but his success at finding a “new” continent gave millions of Europeans something new to “believe in,” but until a colonist or conquistador actually experienced being on this land, he or she had no idea what was actually believed-in. The existence of this land, north, south and islands, was absolutely true, regardless.
Let’s imagine, then, that so-and-so colonist were to visit her home country and try explaining how wonderful the new colony is and the beauty and bounty it offered. What would happen during that conversation? You might be able to perceive several dangers to truth already.
The teller’s enthusiasm – or perceived enthusiasm – would be heard by the listener with automatic reservation. Are conditions as good as she says? Isn’t she overstating how wonderful things are? Just thinking about winters over there makes me shiver!
Was any TRUTH conveyed? The teller wasn’t trying to lie to her correspondent, but did she actually share what her listener accepted as truth? Was such a conveyance even possible? Is truth possible only as a result of experience?
TRUTH has a lot to do with the welfare of nations and citizens: everything from public safety to public health, to macro-and micro-economics. Economists, or business “experts” are often asked about “inflation” these days. Everyone is impacted by rising prices for basic necessities of life, for example, and they would like to know why they rose so quickly and when they’ll return to “normal?” Those asked are likely to say that the “rate of inflation” is coming down to where it was four years ago. This might please many, but none of them will have heard the truth. The queried experts will have referenced a number, or value, concerning “inflation,” but proceeded to describe something else entirely. Even if said expert believed he or she was being accurate, the resulting “information” was unrelated to the topic asked about. BELIEF will have been conveyed… even honest belief, but no truth, per se. The listeners receiving that belief will probably accept it as if true, and even go on to repeat it as if it were. No harm was intended and, probably, none was done unless, that is, one of the listeners has a role in macro-economic policy somewhere. Let’s hope – and we all do – that the policy-making listener knows what “inflation” actually is and makes decisions on that basis.
Truth is precise and provable when experienced. A person touching a tree-trunk can rest assured that the tree exists in the exact form he or she can feel, see and possibly smell. If the observer is a good speaker and tells a person who has a decent command of their shared language, what the tree looks like, feels like and smells like, and exactly where it is, the listener, IF HE OR SHE BELIEVES THE SPEAKER TO BE HONEST, will have received some truth about a bit of reality, and be confident that is the case. How often we complete conversations with the general feeling that we have learned something that is basically true, or is close enough to truth to make a decision about or act upon. “True enough,” we say.
The description of a tree has no future impact on the life, health or fortunes of the receiver of that information. It won’t keep him from going to work, from eating meat or picking up his child from baseball practice. Even if the description by the observer/experiencer of that tree were wildly exaggerated to a point of nonsense, the rest of the listener’s life would be unaffected, unless he or she were to one day encounter that same tree and find that the observer had lied about it, thus changing their relationship for the future. There are, decidedly, different “levels” of truth that we all have learned to manage the impacts of. Indeed, we have learned to manage our own relationship with truth that connects to or emanates from ourselves. Neither society nor civilization could function OR IMPROVE, without a certain level of truthfulness that most members agree to. But, how to measure the levels or, to be more precise and truthful with ourselves: how to make judgments about “truthiness?”
Judging others is virtually automatic by age 12 or so, but the habit deserves more thought than it is typically afforded in today’s social-media environment. We are constantly assailed by strong opinions about people and topics, with little time spent on using our judgment power. Concepts slide into our consciousness without much analysis and become part of a background of belief – or “truth” – against which newer ideas are compared and sources thereof, judged. It doesn’t seem Prudent to try to socialize only in terms of absolute truth. Personalities would be overridden by analytics; friendship and love would be impossible: the strengths and weaknesses of individuals would be disregarded. The very essence of judgment, sympathy, empathy and charity would be subsumed in a distillate of pure truth. The joy of wonder and hope would be made unnecessary if humanity were defined only by pure fact.
If interpersonal relationships must include true feelings and honesty as essential parts of managed truth, where is unvarnished truth required in modern society? Education, government, law-enforcement and medicine. It is easy to see why, with a little reflection.
First, Education: Learning has been slipping badly over the past 40 years. It is crucial that there be real human teachers keeping students on course – it’s part of maturation – but there must be a high percentage of absolute truth conveyed. No human will be bias-free, but that’s useful in terms of engaging students in the subject matter: interaction with the teacher/professor. Healthy argument speeds internalization of crucial parts of the subject matter, and not the same argument for every student. Humans are essential, but each should be judged or evaluated on the true percentage of TRUTH that is conveyed – and learned – by students. Education by indoctrination is failing miserably.
Second, Government: Maintaining governing structures and processes that are most effective in lying to citizens and others will only hasten the demise of the nation. Advancement, free-enterprise and success of the citizens can only occur with a high degree of honesty in every interaction with government. When dishonesty is the order of the day, people commence to make their own decisions about which laws each will obey. If more than one person in 15 becomes criminal, society will implode. Moreover, dishonest government will lie most actively about budgets and debt, ultimately bringing [Society cannot survive] financial ruin down upon the people, generally, and on the nation.
Third, Law-Enforcement: The most basic covenant between citizens and their government in a Republic, is equal application of the laws. It is counter-productive entirely to create different classes of people based on how laws are enforced; it is beyond logic, fairness and honesty by any definition to enforce laws more harshly on citizens than on illegal entrants. Society cannot survive when its leaders dissipate the value of citizenship.
Fourth, Medicine: Crass industrialization – and politicization through money – of medicine, medical research and pharmaceuticals, has cheapened medicine to mere employment and made the medical “system” an untrustworthy power-player with access to the taxing/inflation power of the federal government. Worse, it spurs globalization for the potential marketing of marginally useful, if not dangerous products to billions, not just millions, of customers. The CARE element of healthcare must be restored to prominence, along with free-enterprise innovation and competition… to keep truth the key factor in care and honesty the key element of healing.
The concept of MERIT, or meritocracy, in all phases of governance and every facet of civilization and social/human advancement, is based on truth and honesty. The ability to actually perform the functions of critical work, or to acquire and grasp the knowledge to invent, innovate and execute increasingly technical skills, are crucial elements of merit. The originators of socialism in its various colors, are the source of “DEI” and other ideas that weaken or specifically deny merit as the right philosophy of honest, benevolent progress. All of such injections of “anti-merit” education, training, hiring and firing, including even in business, have occurred in entities controlled or involved with essentially socialist-influenced government.
Americans should compare ALL political candidates in terms of meritocracy or anti-meritocracy, regardless of related pejoratives employed by either “side.” Our standards of living, health, safety and comfort can be weakened in just a few years of twisting society towards sympathetic “equity” and away from meritocracy… and truth.