Truth is very illusive, it seems, especially when you consider all the various opinions about what it is. It would seem on the surface that if we collectively can't even agree on a definition of truth that we're destined to eternal darkness and separation from it.
Fortunately, however, despite the fact that collectively we can't agree on what it is, individually we are often quite certain we do know what it is, so it is quite possible that individuals might find it, even if we collectively can't. Does this mean we are to live out our short lives here on earth in individual microcosms of truth? Well, that last question is beyond the scope of this particular blog post.
But I do want to discuss 3 particular conceptions of truth. [WARNING: this is likely to be a long post, so feel free to take it in chunks.]
To begin with, however, I should say that there are self-declared understandings of truth and then there are actual representations of truth. Where there is a discrepancy, that is often called hypocrisy. For example, I say that X is true, but I act as if Y (which at least appears to contradict X) is true.
So let's say I'm talking about Charlie Brown (the comic strip character)here. I can know his version of reality by his words, by his actions and/or by his thoughts. Since I'm not God and also can not psychically read minds, I can only know my thoughts, not someone else's, although psychologists will probably scream out that there are all these blind spots and different mind-bending tactics we humans use that can even warp or hinder my understanding of my own thoughts.
With that caveat in mind, and because this is my blog, I will present my version of truth based on my thoughts and the other versions of truth based mostly mostly on deeds. That may sound unfair, but like I said, it's my blog. So this posting is going to be my (albeit limited) perception of my version of truth and 2 other versions of truth by other collective entities.
Now that we got that out of the way, let the party begin!
Although I did have an introductory philosophy class in my undergraduate studies, it was in my master's class on Philosophy of Education that I consciously remember identifying with idealism. Here is part of the definition from Britannica.com:
"in philosophy, any view that stresses the central role of the ideal or the spiritual in the interpretation of experience. It may hold that the world or reality exists essentially as spirit or consciousness, that abstractions and laws are more fundamental in reality than sensory things, or, at least, that whatever exists is known in dimensions that are chiefly mental—through and as ideas."
In my class we studied various major philosophical positions, especially as related to education and teaching, and we also were asked to analyze our own views.
During that process I learned that I was a minority in that class and, according to the professor, in teaching as a whole. Realism was much better represented in our class, which apparently also is more the norm (I'm speaking of early 1990s in the USA).
In my view the person ("man") is primarily soul and our body is just a temporary house for the soul and spirit. Other than that I believe that ultimate reality and understanding of reality comes from God, and while I believe He does not contradict the physical realm, we often don't understand the physical correctly and so it is best to trust Him rather than potentially erroneous understandings of the physical world. There are plenty of examples of how science retracts itself when it is discovered that they were wrong about something that is now "proven" incorrect.
My idealism has held me in good stead, (my Achilles heel?, my fatal flaw?) when faced with apparent conflicting pressures and views. I mean, I've been in situations that the only way I could stand firm at all was by holding to my beliefs and not letting myself just be pressured into changing. I can't tell you how strengthening it feels that despite everything I managed to keep my conscious relatively clear and holding to my beliefs. However, you should already understand that I am open to change, but not by pressure: only if I come to really believe that I was wrong and need to change, usually after significant experiences and even research.
Another example of this that some people might be able to relate to regards professional ethics (any profession). Usually professional organizations put together ethics statements, which are revised from time to time as issues come up and need addressing. A lot of companies that hire professionals want their allegiance to be with the company, but professionals can be slippery folk because they often have ethical standards apart from the company they work with. This is a very limited example, but maybe you can understand idealism a bit by it.
So my truth is ultimately based mostly on idealism.
Here's where you can take a break before I go on to the next view of truth.
*** And now we will pause for station identification. ***
Now that you're refreshed and ready to plow on with me, I'll present to you the second view of truth. In this view, the proof is in the pudding... or the ends justifies the means. Who cares how you throw the pudding together, as long as it tastes good, right? I just hope Fido wasn't helping and that you washed your hands somewhere in the process. But in this view, those things don't matter - only the end result.
I'm speaking here of the mission organizations working in Eastern Europe (I held out hope that not all were so bad, but any that might not have actively been involved in such politicizing of their work just turned a blind eye regarding the others.)
It's hard for me to imagine an alternative than these missions holding to an ends justifies the means view of truth - where the end is the truth and it is displayed as truth.
The Apostle Paul sort of addresses this in Philippians chapter 1, but there he is only talking about bad motives in preaching the Gospel, not about the tactics used when he says "...whether in pretext or in truth, Christ is announced; and in this I rejoice" (1:18, Darby translation).
My understanding of how missions in Communist countries (and I believe other "closed" countries too) is that anything is allowed as long as it gives them the opportunity to reach people in these countries. That's why they can lie to border guards, take money from the CIA, maintain military connections, etc.
In Vienna we were told to explain our work to local people we might interact with by saying we work for an international publishing company. That's a partial truth, but the publishing part was only a support for the teaching, which was the primary activity of the organization. They published textbooks for the courses being taught in Eastern Europe. But, hey! it's no big deal, and ultimately by telling little white lies we can continue our work.
And when you take little steps towards relativism and John Dewey's pragmatism (which is very American) it's easy to take another step and another until before you know it you've just slid completely down the slippery slope and there you are where the ends justifies the means.
But if they are able to show significant results ("ends") to their supporters back home, and claim that the process ("means") is secret because of the delicate nature of the context they're working in, then no one is worse for the not knowing. And everyone lives happily ever after.
My contention is, however, that this whole work there was permeated with this "ends justifies the means" pragmatism so that it really did become a modus operandi. Needless to say, my idealism was not well excepted there and we had a major clash of cultures: Americans against American (me).
Phew! Two down and just one to go. Go take another break.
****
The third view on truth that I'm going to address today is that of my family. Actually, it is only fairly recently that I have come to see this as a value in the family. I learned a lot by living up north by my brother for a few months.
This view says that might makes right. That's the Capalini view of life and truth, what I call a "Capalini-ism".
Now might can be many things, such as the obvious, physical strength, but also monetary strength, prestige strength, even credibility strength or being the most incredibly needy person in the family ("woe is me! I have it so bad that if you don't feel sorry for me and help me everyone will know you're a jerk!"). Right now I'm at the bottom of the various types of strength, but since I don't hold to this view of truth and I'm in a position where I don't have much to lose anyway, I'm perhaps not as phased by it as I "should" be (according to our family social norms). I definitely don't fit in too well at present, except as a fall guy or scapegoat.
It might seem sort of strange that all these years I didn't know that those were the rules of play in my own family, but remember, I was the oldest child and only daughter and I just went about doing what I thought I was supposed to do. I didn't make choices to place myself in the family strength-wise. So now I've had to rethink some things from the past and wonder if while I was out doing my thing I may have in some way set some family standards for strength that some others thought they had to compete against. Also, I don't know this for sure now, and Dad died a few years ago, but I almost wonder if he sort of set this wheel going that way by, for example, being proud of me doing this or that resulting in a chain reaction where the others thought they had to compete for his approval against me as the standard. I'm not sure about that, but I have a suspicion that there may be at least some of that. I really am not the competitive sort, except to perhaps compete against myself for personal development.
Anyway, taking us back to the present, my brother up north has physical strength. The thinking goes like this: I'm stronger than you so knock it off (accompanied by a display of physical strength). He also holds the purse strings of the family, except me, although I don't have any money anyway, because he manages everyone's finances. But it's mom that really has the most money, but besides that her claim to right-ness is her incredible needyness and she sets a standard against which others must compete for similar attention and sympathy. My brother in Seattle, I think , has a lot of strengths, but I'm not sure they're the kind that work well in this kind of "might makes right" system. As far as this ethic goes, his proximity to and care of Mom, gives him some extra power. After my back surgery a year and a half ago I think I had some of the "needyness" strength, that even for a brief time pre-empted mom's claim to fame on that front.
In this system, if you don't wield power along the lines mentioned here, then you don't have the right to determine "truth". However, if tables turn, then understandings of truth (the details of truth) will change with the position of the players, which is determined by their strength. Hence: might makes right. Or: The person with might determines what's right.
The end.
****
So to summarize, here are these players and their views of truth:
1. Me: Idealism: What is spiritual (esp. from a Christian viewpoint) is the ultimate truth.
2. Missions to closed countries: Pragmatism/The Proof is in the Pudding: Show me results and I'll believe. (How you got there doesn't matter).
3. My family: Might makes right: Whoever is the most powerful gets the right to determine what's right and true.
I hope you get a sense of clash of cultures here. Like the children's ball game I'm the "monkey in the middle". Aaaaaghhh! Get me out of here... I don't want to play this game. Stop the world... I want off!
Wouldn't it be nice if it were so simple in real life? *Sigh*
Pardon me if I take leave with that thought and have an extended reverie about the possibility of a different reality.
~ Meg
