Too true, true enough
I’ve always liked the pair of English expressions: True enough and Too true. Both of them imply agreement, but with a reservation; and they also suggest that the maxim ‘nothing in excess’ applies to truth as much as to anything else. What we need is not just truth, but the right kind of truth, the right measure of truth, and in an appropriate context and at the right time. At least that’s what I’m inclined to think; and it’s confirmed by lots of the comments I’ve received on earlier posts.
As far as progress is concerned, it’s really encouraging that everyone took the point that (as ‘Richard O’Shea said) there are 'many viewpoints’ as to what it may be, and that it involves imputing a ‘direction’ to history which always carries a risk of being catastrophically wrong; and (as Eman said) it’s easier to say what it’s not than what it is. Hotheads on the streets forty years ago used to speak of ‘revolution in revolution’; perhaps cooler heads in Internet cafés can start considering ‘progress in progress’?
But I’m not so sure (to continue with Richard O’Shea) about the idea that ‘truth is important’. My point in Will the truth save us was not so much that we should be wary of truth, but that we should be wary of anyone who makes a big noise about its importance and their commitment to it. Trumpeting the importatnce of truth may make sense in a religious context where eternal happiness is thought to depend on bearing witness to a great truth. In that context people could cheerfully say ‘Let justice be done though the skies fall in’: as far as they were concerned, the destruction of this world was not a serious prospect and anyway it was a bagatelle compared with happiness in another one. But in a secular context – I mean for those who believe that this world is the only world, and this life the only life – and in a militarized and ecologically irresponsible world which really could be brought to a complete end by human pig-headedness and pride, I think we would do well to tone our truthist rhetoric down. Anyway, as the old Stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius once pointed out: you should never trust someone who assures you that they’re going to tell you the truth. It only reminds you that their truthfulness is in doubt, and if their truthfulness is is doubt then their promises to tell the truth can do nothing to redeem it. As Ian Kemmish very well said last week: ‘truth is part of the problem, not part of the solution.’
And that’s why I think (when it comes to terrorist murder) that the awfulness of unnecessary deaths is not just a function of the number of people involved. The horror lies in the state of mind of the perpetrator: just imagine getting on a train or a plane or a bus, looking round at all the other passengers – perhaps catching a few glances or smiles of people planning, playing, plotting or whatever they’re doing – and being able to say to yourself: in two seconds I’m going to blow myself and wipe you all out too. As ever when we’re horrified by what people do, perhaps the hardest thing is realizing that we may ourselves harbour a certain sympathy for the perpetrators, and that we share our humanity with them as well as the victims.
Now is that completely wrong, or is it perhaps true enough or even too true?
To us mere mortals the truth can never I believe be absolute. We still do not understand what absolute is all about in our lives or this world.
The truth is perhaps only ever informed by our own lives and experiences. If someone gives us some information and we can verify this ie - the train for Portsmouth will leave Euston Station at 6pm tonight (not a very good example I admit in the scheme of things today) and we find it does then we accept this as 'truth'.
but this is one layer of a long ladder. Truth in the facts of life - a ruler is 12 inches long and can rely on it to measure with.
But what of the biblical phrase "the truth will set you free" - harder to prove and accept - it seems to dwell in the realms of intuition not fact.
Then of course there are half -trues - now there's an interesting conundrum in itself and then "little white lies" - are these a sub-division of minor truths?
Or what is nearly true or maybe true? It seems as we move away from the ruler of life truism becomes somewhat nebulous - is Indonesian truth the same as German truth or is there some sort of cultural norm that defines it?
And finally for me - is what we see and smell, and touch and taste and hear and experience always the truth - or just a kaleidoscope of half truths, little white lies and some truths?
struth I think I've stumbled onto something here Holmes!
At different times in history humanity's felt recognisable shortages.
"There's not enough food, not enough freedom, not enough knowledge of the natural world, not enough knowledge of what policitians are up to..."
So we go on a crusade, enact some legislation, believe this one aspect is more of the answer than it is... for a while.
We haven't recognised this flaw in ourselves, or at least its recognition is never allowed to become established in society.
In the United States one often hears "That is true," expressing agreement with something, in conversation; the qualified "True enough" may be more characteristic of the British.
A 20th-century British philosopher of a linguistic bent once wrote, "Importance is not important, truth is". And by truth I think he meant not grand metaphysical or absolute religious truth but a series of carefully formulated, small, possibly provisional truths.
To Thine Self Be True is a motto I've always thought problematical, since it implies one could have a perfect knowledge of oneself, which is impossible... And if it's impossible to be objective about oneself, how can we possibly know what drives another into believing and acting in the way they do.
One takes on trust and subjects to scrutiny the utterances of others, depending on the degree to which what we are told is likely to have an adverse affect our own future, should they be deceiving us...
I've so often felt that philosophers jog along, like trains, on rails they're laying, toward destinations already decided. If they wouldn't be comfortable with a conclusion then they don't build in that direction.
Tracks are funny things. They're milled by an industry pre-dating the eventual journey (unless it's just a replacement track). Old language doesn't help with new views. While it might sustain the industry powering this computer, or the farmers feeding my brain, there's little incentive to undermine the existing view.
Even catastrophic, pessimistic views are grist for the existing mill. We talk of the great warming but the impact on our habits has not even stalled the increase.
You seem to be writing, here, one set of wheels on your reasoning, the other on the rail of your humanity. It's appealing, but aren't we losing something?
I find them (philosophers) another form of art - and like artists no two are alike. It reminds me of the Rolfe Harris program where he invites three artists to paint an public figure in their own way.
the public figure is always amazed, sometimes delighted other times not - this is philosophy - an artist with his/her own point of view - but not really any wiser - he/she is simple painting a picture of life and the only truism in it is in his/her mind!
As for losing something? - I doubt it - you can't really lose what you don't recognise you have in the first place. You have to recognise reality to lose it - that old clique phrase "he's losing his sanity" implies we have sanity in the first place - now there's a topic full of debate and unreasoning.
Artists are for entertainment not for saving the world or even changing it for that matter
The song 'Glad your here with me': Papa M, Whatever, Mortal - contains the lines
"I don't mean to judge the man that murders. I don't care to un-sympathise, for I am neither victim nor killer, I see myself in both of their eyes."
This supports the notion that we share our humanity as Mr Ree points out. As an ex-soldier I have looked into the eyes of mass murderers, peering into that part of the eye we look to for hidden information. I have spoken to them and listened to their reasoning. They were human eyes speaking a tounge I understood, reasoning with ideas that I could comprehend, and yes it is possible to see ourselves in their eyes.
"Truth is part of the problem." I struggle with this notion and would like the argument to be expanded. I believe this is an oversight and that the problem is the misinterpretation of the truth and not the existence of truth itself. I do indeed make a big fuss about the truth, I also make a big fuss about continually questioning its veracity, is it still true? I am an agnostic. I despise unquestioning acceptance.
Mr Kemmish writes that if the truth were revealed to me I can all of a sudden dispence with moral responsibility (the Golden Rule), well I just don't agree, infact I would have thought that it would clarify moral attitudes not obfuscate them.
If the truth is not important then theocracy is un-important, democracy is un-important and any idea propogated becomes un-important. Is ignorance a blissful state? The truth is important (to me anyway) because without it I am in perpetual doubt, a most uncomfortable condition.
Perhaps all is delusion? We should get to consciousness at some point in the discussion.