…well, the truth is, at root (thus from the view of
etymology), strongly anchored in such concepts as faith, adherence, and
loyalty. It came as a small shock to me to realize this morning that underneath
it is the Old English word treowe,
which I recognize as the German word die
Treue, a word I understand deep in the gut. That word, in turn, according
to my Cassell’s dictionary, is defined as “fidelity, faithfulness, constancy,
loyalty; sincerity, honesty; accuracy.”
Based on its roots, “the truth” is best described—except for
the last word in that list above—as a quality or feeling resident in my
internal reaction to something; it has a definite emotional quality—again, with
the exception of that last word, accuracy. I do not think that most of us have
a very strong emotional reaction to accuracy. We’re cool about accuracy but
warm about the truth.
Now the problem with “the truth” arises when the truth of
some vast collective phenomenon needs to be assessed—and therefore the personal
feelings of large masses of people are involved—as in public opinion. There we’re
dealing with there is vast clouds of facts we cannot check in person—and our
own view of promises which will require months and years to check.
The truth for us, in
such a situation, is a judgment based pretty much on a gut-level reaction to
the values that some collective phenomenon may or may not represent.
How close to the “truth” are the fidelity, faithfulness,
constancy, and loyalty of millions of voters? How much do they collectively
know, how deeply, and how accurate are they on the whole. The truth is we can’t
know. The truth is that the truth is as elusive in practice as the meaning of
life. All we know is what it is for us, individually. I know in my heart. Not
collectively.
If we define truth as “that which is true or in accordance
with fact or reality” (as Google does), means, when applied to collective
facts, that these can only be checked approximately. None of us knows reality.
I sense that this subject is endless, so here an abrupt end.
In that long list above in Cassell’s, one word is obviously inconsistent:
accuracy. All the other definitions suggest that truth is “good”; why else
those positive reactions of adherence to it; accuracy, however, captures today’s
common usage. True is that which agrees with what we see. If what we see is “evil,”
rejection, repugnance, revulsion, flight, and aggression would be the negative
reactions truth engenders. The content it hides in that single syllable is what
really matters.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.