Sooo, a few months ago I made this post and finally got some comments that weren't randos trying to convince me to follow them for no reason. I mean, I get the odd on-topic comment from time to time, but the rule, it seems for my comment sections is either tumbleweed or desperate pleas for unwarranted support.
In the comment section of that particular post, a delightfully engaged soul by the username @eskmcdonnell began a debate that rather tickled my intellectual fancy, and our little back and forth was so much fun for me that I spent entirely more words than initially intended in the exercise.
So, since I'm still busy with more important things, I figured I would put that debate up here as an actual post, for the benefit of casual readers who have no interest in wading through the comment sections of long dead posts.
Enjoy.
.jpg)
First @eskmcdonnell made a comment about my image. That image up there.
@eskmcdonnell : A nice sounding phrase, an interesting idea, presented in that graphic (though not really connected to the blog): "The lie of war is that it aims to bring peace when peace is the thing war destroys" But that's a specious rendering of the justification for war in the name of peace. It properly goes like this: We go to war to protect our peaceful way of life.
Me: Playing with words, with words I play. To say several things, several things, I say. Now should you see, there was more that was said. That is to say, I said "The truth of war, though... Is that peace is forgotten without it". Read the whole thing before presuming to know what I meant. And since the piece is about arguments and truth, perhaps it's not so unconnected... Yes?
@eskmcdonnell : Connected like an individual human being and the human species
**Me: ** Sure. If you like.
Also, thanks for some fun and thought provoking comments. I've enjoyed the challenges you present.
Quick note - This mini thread happened concurrently with the longer one below. Just so y'all have context for my last comment up there. Next is the main debate
@eskmcdonnell : Argument is the lifeblood of politics and intellectual discourse. You really do speak madness! Both cases in an argument need to be made b/c they are foils to one another. IF one or the other is not wholly true then together they push understanding toward a more whole picture of the truth.
Me: Yes... And once the truth is found, there is no argument anymore.
@eskmcdonnell : And how totalitarian is truth and authoritarian is logic!
I would add to what I commented, to say that there can be no one truth in politics (except for truth in the sense of authenticity) b/c everyone's opinion is his own 'truth' and opinions are neither true nor false. That is why politics is an endless struggle, and why arguments can never be laid to rest, whilst people have their own minds.
Me: Sure... I see where you're coming from. Your perspective is valid from your perspective.
But consider this: The 'endless' arguments of politics only exist because the politics we engage in require consensus to function effectively - that is to say, in politics progress on any given issue is only achieved when enough people agree to progress the issue in the agreed direction. This makes disagreement a potential tactic to influence the direction of Congressional consensual progression. The argument ends when people say it ends, and can be revived when people say otherwise. Now, try arguing with Gravity. Or Light. We can only argue with people, because only people can choose to deny a truth. So, again, truth ends arguments. If the argument is ongoing , there may be a deception present. If there is no deception, then there is more to uncover and the understanding of what is believed to be true is incomplete. Denial of objective reality is fun to imagine, but objective truths are not only self-evident, but undeniable. You can disagree. Go ahead. You would be proving me right.
@eskmcdonnell : Disagreeing wouldn't prove you right, but myself.
Me: I'm curious about your reasoning on that point. In what way would you be right by disagreeing? You realize that for as long as we disagree, the argument continues? If we come to an agreement, the argument ends (dies)... My point throughout this delightful debate has been that objective truths end arguments when the minds behind the arguments converge upon them. Secondary to that is the idea that once a truth becomes self-evident, denying said truth is... well.. a bit silly. The thing about the truth is that it doesn't cease to be true just because someone claims it false. The someone is engaging in deception. Now while this perpetuates the argument, it does not make the truth less true. What it does do, is make fools of those who believe the lie.
Now, think for a minute... Actually think about this... For something to be true in the truest sense of the truth, it has to be true regardless of perspective. If something claiming to be true is only true given a certain perspective, then it is not really true, is it? So if you're going to come at me with claims of "everyone's opinion is his own 'truth' and opinions are neither true nor false", then we will reach an impasse, because one of us is fiddling with the definition of truth in order to claim that something other than truth is indeed true.
The astute observer will have noted the many and varied word games present throughout the post and these comments. I have used the word truth so much now, that the word seems almost meaningless... However, does that change the nature of objective truth? Not in the slightest. Because the truth is the truth, no matter how it presents itself.
Final point before I go do something more useful with my time - I do not need to convince you of the truth. In fact, you are free to deny or accept any view you wish. It is not my goal to persuade you. My goal has simply been to respond, as thoughtfully as I can. I am not the arbiter or decider of anything other than my own thoughts. That much, I think we can agree on. However, I do not claim any of my thoughts or opinions to be true. My claim, is that truth should be, by definition, self-evident - which means that no matter your perspective, the truth is true. The best example I can give of what I mean is this: Every human on Earth knows what the Sun is - it's the big bright thing in the sky. That it exists is true. That it burns skin that it shines on for too long is true. There are many things we don't know about the Sun, and there are many opinions we can have about it. Those opinions cannot be called true, until some method is devised to demonstrate to other minds that any given opinion is true or false. When an opinion is proven true, the truth of the opinion must be self-evident for the proof to be called proof. When this is the case, we have ourselves an objective truth that ends all debate on that particular opinion. Do you understand? This is what I mean in my post about the truth ending arguments. It is not totalitarian or authoritarian, it simply is. Another example, this time political - lets say Emperor X declares that he is God... He may be able to convince a significant number of people that he is indeed a deity, and those people may wholeheartedly believe this to be the case. Others may not. Can any of the claims from the Emperor, the Believers or the Infidels be considered truly true? No. There is a deception present. When the Emperor (inevitably) dies, all the Believers must now defend their deity against the claims from the Infidels that gods are supposed to be immortal. The Believers may come up with very fanciful explanations that may even convert a few Infidels, but since the truth of the Emperor's godhood can never be demonstrated, from an objective standpoint, we must concede that the only true thing we can say about the whole situation is that Emperor X claimed he was God, and a bunch of his subjects believed him. This would be true, regardless of opinion, because, once-again, it is self-evident.
So, with all that in mind, do you still believe "everyone's opinion is his own 'truth' and opinions are neither true nor false"? If so, prove it. You can't, because it's not true.
@eskmcdonnell : The proof is no two men experience the same thing the same way and think the same about it. Our civilization is built on the enshrinement of plurality in the political community. You shouldn't not understand this. Though it is a good exercise to reaffirm principles by argument.
You're talking about factual truth, objective reality. There can only be one factual truth. It is stupid to deny since reality confronts us with its truth whether we will it or not (hence why it inherently is totalitarian, logic being authoritarian), and that renders this truth scientifically discoverable, after which it can be established as fact.
But we can also speak of metaphysical truths, e.g. values, beliefs, religions. Factual opinion is really only presumption and conjecture about reality. Opinion properly speaking is perspectival. Thus it can only be called false if spoken dishonestly, and then it is not the opinion which is false but the person expressing it.
**Me: ** And all of a sudden, we agree. Argument ended ;)
This was fun. Thank you :)
And that's where it ended.
There are a few things that I think are noteworthy about this debate:
First, is that although my last comment stated the we agreed, the discerning reader will spot that I was not specific about what I agreed on. Frankly, I had realized that we were talking past each other and that our argument would inevitably become a semantic and circular one. So, since I could honestly claim to agree with some of his last point, I decided to end the argument there in the way that I had elucidated in my post, granting my opponent the concession he so evidently required whilst also reinforcing the points made in my argument.
Second, the core of our disagreement lies in the conflation of honesty and truth. That is to say, Mr McDonnell evidently believes that an honestly held opinion or belief is essentially the same as Truth with a capital T, whereas I am of the opinion that Truth is distinct from Honesty. Mr McDonnell prefers to draw his line between Truth and Fact. Like I said, we would have ended up making semantic arguments and talking around each other until the meataphorical cows returned to the imaginary barn.
So, today when I read it again, I figured I might as well elucidate my stance on the matter to general readers, not so much to win a debate that has long since ended, but because I want to be clear about my thoughts on Honesty, Truth and Fact.
Honesty is a matter of intention. If you honestly believe something to be true, you can be very honestly false (or wrong). I could go on, but with the rest of this post in mind, you should be able to see what I'm trying to say.
Fact is a matter of consensus. That is to say, we declare something a fact by means of consensus and debate, and in political discourse, a shared set of facts is essential to policymaking. Facts, however, can change with new evidence as many facts have over the course of human history. There is also the problem that False Facts exist and are shared by many people. As an example, I would call to your attention the many False Facts that were used to perpetuate the practice of chattel slavery for centuries.
Truth however, is independent of such things. It is immutable. It cannot be untrue regardless of perspective or opinion. To illustrate this, I will use the mathematical concept of a constant, in this specific instance we'll use Pi, since it's the oldest and most well tested.
Pi is defined as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. A circle is only a circle by virtue of Pi being Pi. That is to say, if you were a farmer and some aliens flattened your corn into a shape that appeared circular, it would only be a crop circle if walking across it in a straight line was Pi times shorter than walking around its edge. In base 10, Pi is 3.14159265... , but it remains Pi in any other base. Pi was Pi befor the Greeks discovered it. Pi will remain Pi long after humans have ceased to be. We engraved a Unit Circle on a golden record and shot it into space because we were so sure that any alien would understand this basic Truth: That a circle is a circle by virtue of Pi.
And in this we can see how useful it is to make clear distinctions between what we call Honest, what we call Fact, and what we call True.
The postmodern notion that Truth is a matter of perspective is not only false, but completely unhelpful in the navigation of the human experience of life on Earth. Subjective Truth is a dangerous myth, since it is prone to Lies in Disguise.
Peace, Love and a Little Madness
Nomad
Not sure why the asterisks are inconsitently applied since they're syntactically identical to the parts where they worked. Oh well... Formatting is a secondary concern.