|
Volume CXXXIII, Number 9 |
 |
"The truth": a matter of perception
GENEVIVE CREEDON
No one wants to believe that the truth is a matter of perception.
I heard someone say the other day that if he knew the truth, there is
no reason why he wouldn't want to convert others to his view. I looked
up the word "truth" in the dictionary, only to find that it
has eight definitions, although I'm sure we could come up with many more.
I'm one of these people who is continually seeking truth. The problem
is, of course, that it isn't something to be sought at all; it is to be
created.
We happen to be living through a moment in history during which the concept
and implications of truth are of definitive importance. The miscommunications
between cultures, religions, governments are all based upon varying conceptions
of truth.
We can't understand why terrorists would want to hijack airplanes and
drive them into our towers, because their cause is not true to us. Similarly
we don't understand the way Afghanistan treats its women, because that
truth in relation to the gender divide is completely outrageous to us.
We certainly have the right to be opposed to the results of some people's
truths, but we have no right to contest the truth itself. The distinction
is not easy to make, especially because it can serve to exonerate the
racist who doesn't lynch, the supporter of terrorist views who doesn't
terrorize.
I once read a book, Conversations with God, in which it was implied
that Hitler may have gone to Heaven, simply because he carried his truth
out (to the extreme). It is something to contemplate, if you believe that
we are alive in order to fully become ourselves. Of course, the mere mention
of such a thought-that Hitler, with all the atrocities he put into action,
could have made it to Heaven-will make you cringe, and it certainly calls
into question many, if not all, of the morals we are taught to follow.
The example of Hitler can be applied to the present. Is it not conceivable
that the terrorists are in Heaven as you read? It is conceivable, even
if that thought is completely unpleasant.
One of the definitions for "truth" according to the American
Heritage Dictionary is "God," a concept that is subject to much
doubt and speculation. Were the terrorists not acting in the name of God?
Is God not a worthy cause?
Our response is that He is not. Indeed, he cannot be, because he is not
a cause at all. He is a figure, more or less present in our lives. Heaven
and Hell are ideas that have more or less tangible realities.
Truth implies immense consequences and a plethora of historical relevance
that most of us are not aware of. Hate is truth. Love is truth. Pain is
truth. Bliss is truth. Racism is truth. Equality is truth…for someone.
Anything we want to tag as truth can become truth. Of course, it needs
to be proven, but proof is an arbitrary method of justification. We can
prove anything we want to prove if we try. We draw on premises and we
come to a conclusion, and because we have proven the conclusion, we take
it to be true, but a conclusion is only true if the premises are true;
it's easy to draw on untrue premises, and it's easy to make people believe
that those premises are true.
We use propaganda, we use brainwashing, we use education to drive people
to certain conclusions, and often we ignore whether those conclusions
are true. We simply accept them as so, because they are so prevalent,
but truth is a matter of perception. If you, who think the terrorism of
the past months is horrendous, were born elsewhere, perhaps in, say, Afghanistan,
would your truth dictate a different reaction?
"Are you going to kill someone? Are you going to kill yourself?"
These are two questions a wise friend once asked in reference to a relative
crisis, and I think they're very relevant to evaluating our truth as individuals
and as a people. If the answer to either question is "yes,"
perhaps we ought to be reconsidering the motivating factor we call "truth."