Truth in the abstract I will define as “a transcendent metaphysical or spiritual reality.” That there is such an overarching “principle,” however, is specifically denied by the poet Wallace Stevens. He put it this way: “There is no such thing as the truth.”1 Nevertheless, contrary to Stevens we persist in thinking that there is an ideal truth of which our mundane truths (if true) are an integral part. But once again Stevens challenges our thinking; to quote Stevens once more: “There are many truths,/ But they are not parts of a truth.”2
Truth, as we are familiar with it, is an idea rather than an abstract transcendent principle; yet it is not merely an idea. Truth is more than a mental image or mental formulation of something seen or known, or imagined. The Truth is a mental formulation driven by the force or conviction that a particular ideation of truth is right in all circumstances.
Truth is not exclusively singular (i.e., the Truth) but manifold (i.e., independent truths), for many hold in mind ideas they claim are true, yet they often contradict the “true” ideas of others. For example, part of Baptist truth is that the act of baptism is merely a symbol (Rom 6:1-4) and not essential for salvation. Catholic truth, however, holds that baptism is a sacrament, one of the seven means of conferring the grace of God,3 and hence is essential for salvation. In other words these two contradictory truths (Baptist and Catholic) are not part of a single metaphysical truth. There are only contradictory mundane truths that are held as ideations in different minds. In this competition between two contemporary giants of religion, we are left with the disturbing question: “What is the truth about baptism?”
Some of these mundane truths we hold in mind are deceitful or downright lies, like the ideal political truth “that all men are created equal.”4 This statement in the U. S. Constitution is sexist (“all men”) and a religious confession to boot (i.e., “created” implies a creator), but, most important, it is simply untrue; for people (much less all men) are not born equal either in native abilities, social status, or physical prowess. Some truths that people live by can qualify as being “evil,” like the truth of racial superiority and its handmaid anti-Semitism.5 Racial superiority was the driving force of the Nazi party (National Socialism) in Germany in the 1930s, a truth that produced extermination camps across Europe in World War II.6
If, on the other hand, there is an abstract transcendent or spiritual reality called Truth, it is not what people live by. We live by our mundane ideas about what we think is the transcendent or spiritual principle (if such there be), since we are always once removed from apprehending the transcendent principle. If there were an abstract transcendent Truth, it would still enter our minds only as an idea about some particular mundane truth. For example, lying is bad (but soldiers lie to deceive the enemy and receive medals for doing so); being kind to one another is good (but kindness in time of war is chargeable as giving aid and comfort to the enemy). Usually we learn ideas about what is true from others and we invest those inherited ideas with authority over our lives.
The author of John portrays Jesus as describing what I take to be an example of transcendent truth, called “the spirit of truth” (John 14:16-17; 15:26; 16:13; 18:37; see also 1 John 4:6; 5:7) of which Jesus’ claim to be “the truth” (John 14:6; 1:17) is one part. But the evangelist leaves his readers with this issue unresolved. During the exchange between Jesus and Pilate (John 18:33-38), Jesus claims to have come into the world to bear witness to the truth (18:37). The evangelist, however, allows Pilate the final unanswered word in the dialogue. “What is truth?” (18:38), Pilate asks. Jesus has no answer. Pilate’s probative question continues to echo in readers’ minds to the end of the Gospel—it turns out to be the final word about “truth” in the gospel.7 Is this a deliberate literary strategy of the author? Is there a transcendent or metaphysical Truth of which all our mundane “truths” are a part, or is truth, like beauty, only what one thinks it is? How does it seem to you?
Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University
1“On the Road Home” in The Collected Poems of Wallace Stevens (Knopf, 1961), 203.
2Stevens, Collected Poems, 203.
3Catholics see baptism in this way: “Through baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God”: https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm
4From a “Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America in General Congress Assembled July 4, 1776” of the U. S. Constitution.
5https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism#20th_century; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany
7John 19:35 and 21:24-25 use the adjective “true” and in literary form are narrative asides that may belong to a later editing of John. See Charles W. Hedrick, “Authorial Presence and Narrator in John: Commentary and Story” in Goehring, Hedrick, Sanders, and Betts, Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1990), 74-93.
14 comments:
Hi Charlie,
Keeping in mind Pilate's Q "What is Truth?", I urge everyone to read "Reading the Bible as Theological Fiction" by Douglas L. Griffin, which appears in the Jan-Feb issue of Westar's Fourth R.
Historical buffs will appreciate his examples of the power of fictional writing drawn from the Civil War.
We are advised not to confuse identifying either "accuracy" or "error" with "being true to life." In the story of the three wise men, for example, although fictional in every possible way, those who are in a neutral relationship with the political-religious establishment are those who see the light, a true to life "horizon of meaning."
P.s. Charlie also has an article in this issue, "Faith Critically Examined."
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Wallace Stevens’ poetry influenced me, especially as I learned the art. To me, personal belief in certain “truths” is an attachment to an idea, imagined by others and shaped on the “potter’s wheel” of one’s mind into an “jar” one finds reinforcing. They are contraindicated for me; One breaks a lot of empty jars realizing that “truths” are generally situational.
“Truths” are also shared, helping define nations, cultures, religions. What are considered “truths” are affixed to times and societies and many come and go, or morph into different “truths.” I think of some of the “truths” attributed to America. America as the “promised land” for the “chosen people” and its manifest destiny were enshrined as “truth” in the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries.
Do “transcendental truths” collide? Truth is a homeless person taken in and cared for by a benefactor , who reminds the benefactor he is the one who razed the homeless person’s home to build a parking lot.
Wallace Stevens spoke of a universal “transcendent truth” when he wrote, “The Emperor of Ice-cream,” the opposite of the John Donne sonnet “Death be not Proud.” I tend to agree: “Let be be finale of seem/the only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream.” Nifty thought for an insurance executive!
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
Magi, the priestly class in Media & Persia, also added credibility and a universal component of “transcendent truth,” as perceived in antiquity, to Matt’s story. (I read the Bible primarily as propaganda.)
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
Good Evening Charlie!
Did you go to the parade honoring your Super Bowl champs yesterday?? That's quite an exciting thing for KC... I'm sure they are still celebrating. We lived there for 10 years and I do remember how passionate those Chiefs fans are- very loud and proud!
1) I don't really understand what a "transcendent spiritual reality is." In other words- what does that have to do with truth? Are reality and truth the same thing?
2) Is there any such thing as an absolute truth that is true for everyone? Put differently, do you and I get to decide what the truth should be for ourselves only- or do we get to decide what the truth should be for everyone else as well?
3) I'm confused that you would classify the phrase "All men are created equal" as a truth. I've never heard it described that way. Isn't that phrase merely a lofty ideal to be aspired to? "America is the land of opportunity" is true for some and untrue for others depending on experience... What role does personal experience play in defining truth? My experience has definitely been one that sees opportunities in America- does that make it true?
4) Do you see anything wrong with people who use the phrase: "Speaking my truth." I've heard Oprah say "I'm speaking my truth." How do you feel about that? Some people get offended by the use of the word "my" truth.
Many thanks as always! Elizabeth
Charlie, I need to clarify number three "All men are created equal" questions... I should have stated that I was not taught that that statement is a universal truth, even though the declaration itself says "these truths are self evident." That particular statement was presented to me as an aspirational idea that inspired and motivated people to overcome barriers and inequality. No one ever told me it was the truth, so I never viewed it as such. Elizabeth
Good afternoon Elizabeth,
We did not get to the parade but watched snippets of it on TV.
1. Think of it as an abstract principle. It is not comprised of specific instances of truth but is an abstract guiding principle by which all specific instances of truth are to be judged. Reality I think of a the way things actually are.
2.The constitution describes the statement as an example of truth: we hold these truths to be self evident--a statement that is not true.
3. "My truth" recognizes that in our world truth is relative, for there are competing truths that work against one another in our world.
Cordially,
Charlie
Charlie and Elizabeth,
If I may suggest a correction: the phrase "that all men are created equal" appears in the Declaration of Independence under the pen of Thomas Jefferson, not in the U.S. Constitution.
Googling the subject matter one finds observations such as the following:
"The Constitution *doesn’t* say that all people are equal, it says "no state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"The Declaration of Independence, which contains the oft-repeated phrase "…that all men are created equal…" was written by Thomas Jefferson, who owned about 200 slaves at the time and never set any of them free, even upon his death. Jefferson's words certainly had no reference to black people, of whom the majority at that time had no place in American society except as property."
"In the context of United States law, originalism is a concept regarding the interpretation of the Constitution that asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding of the authors or the people at the time it was ratified."
"Justice Scalia called his judicial approach to the Constitution “originalism” or “textualism”. The idea of Originalism/Textualism is that the Constitution means no more or less than what it meant to those who originally wrote and ratified it. This is seen as a counter-approach to the “living Constitution” idea..."
I would say that "originalism" is about equivalent to "literalism" in the field of biblical interpretation. It doesn't properly take into consideration humanity's advances, in this case in matters of equality under the law, across the centuries. The fact that women didn't have the right to vote until well into the 20th century boggles the mind. And of course all kinds of sub-populations have gained equality before the law since then because they were finally recognized as equal before the creator of all.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa
My thought is that the belief that there are universal “truths” implies that certain beliefs are universal, applying to all cultures and societies for all time. This is elusive. For instant, the KJV taught millions of English speakers, “Thou shalt not kill.” Universal? Look again. Beginning with the Hebrew word mistranslated (ratsah = murder) and continuing after the Decalogue laws specify what “killing” is considered murder and what isn’t, the society defined murder, as have societies both going forward and before it. And, that definition varies, depending on societal customs, definitions, and times. In the 19th century West, killing Native Americans wasn’t considered murder because they were considered savage “sub-humans.” In the days of slavery adultery and rape did not generally apply to behaviors toward slaves for that same reason. And, generally adultery was primarily applied to wives throughout antiquity because societies were patriarchal and adultery by the wife posed a threat to the lineage, unlike adultery by the husband.
It has taken Articles 13, 14, and 19 of the Constitution to begin to widen the horizon of the sentiment that “all men are created equal” to include more than land owning white males, but these Amendments have still fallen short. Practices and laws remain and are proposed that seek to codify equality to apply inequitably. There is a definite link between this, both within so-called conservative Christianity and in the secular world, and what Gene cautioned about using a document from a far different society and divergent cultures to define the USA today, “original intent.” Their worldviews seem identical in this aspect and out of touch in a multi-cultural world.
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
Gene is correct that the phrase "all men are created equal" appears in the Declaration of Independence as my note 4 asserts but I mistakenly attributed it to the Constitution in the body of the essay.
Cordially,
Charlie
Thank you Charlie and Gene!
Charlie you mentioned that we live in a world where there are competing truths that work against each other at times. So how do you know when something is the truth or not? In other words, how do you personally decide whether or not something is the truth?
Also- is truth always positive or can it be negative as well?
Stay warm! Elizabeth
Good Morning Elizabeth,
Ancient Greek Philosophers said a thing was true when it was an accurate description of whatever thing you are describing. The author of first John said that one comes to know the difference between truth and error by whether or not one agrees with him and his community (1 John 4:5-6).
I think the truth is something one has to figure out for one's self. The other option is to have someone tell you what is truth. In any case the truth you know and the truth you reject are both flawed, as Plato's Theory of the Forms has it (my next blog when finished). I don't know what you mean by a negative truth.
Cordially,
Charlie
Hi Charlie- many people describe themselves as "truth seekers." So if something proves to be true- they focus on it, even if it's very negative. The corona virus for example. The truth is, many people are suffering and dying from that illness. That's the truth. So because it's true and it's happening (and if we're to be seekers of truth) should we pay close attention to all the negativity going on in the world? Some people say that focusing only upon "positive truth" is the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand and ignoring reality because reality includes both positive and negative truths. Do you consider yourself to be a truth seeker? Elizabeth
Sorry I forgot to include this Charlie: The overarching principle behind my example of a negative truth would be this, "Humans live in a fallen world that can be dangerous because it is susceptible to germ and disease." (I don't necessarily agree with that but many Christians do) Elizabeth
It is true that we live in a dangerous world--human beings being susceptible to germs and disease is only one danger. The term "fallen" intrudes a religious component into your statement that is not necessarily true.
Cordially,
Charlie
Post a Comment