Originally Posted by dreadgeek
No matter how many times I hear it explained, I can't get past the idea that 'true', when applied to a statement, is supposed to be a measure of veracity. If it is not then 'tell the truth' and 'tell a lie' become empty phrases.
Take, for example, the old idea of a child caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Imagine that child explaining that for her it is 'true' that she wasn't told she couldn't have cookies before dinner. Since she wasn't told that (because it was true for her) then that means she could have a cookie and because it is true for her there is no grounds for punishing her for taking a cookie when she wasn't supposed to. Now, of course, the child's mother has her own 'truth' that she did tell her child not to eat cookies before dinner but if we concede that the child has her own truth and the mother has her own truth and if we decide that there is no reason to prefer one truth over the other, then the mother has no grounds for disciplining her child. I think we would all agree that if, for example, the child was demonstrably at school and the cookie jar fell off the counter and broke, it would be unjust--even abusive--for the mother to punish her child for something the child demonstrably could not have done.
Yet, if we concede that the mother can have one 'truth' (one where the child broke the cookie jar even if she was nowhere near it) and the child can have another (where she didn't break the cookie jar because she was at school) now we have to concede that if the mother asserts that her 'truth' is that her daughter broke the cookie jar then she is justified in punishing the child.
If you would concede that the only circumstances where it would be unjust to punish the child is when the child did not do that for which she is going to be punished, then we have now broken the link between what the child does and what she is punished for. It does not matter if she *did* the thing what matters is if her mother has as her truth that she did the thing. Whether it *actually* happened becomes functionally irrelevant.
The problem I have with the 'this is my truth' idea is that it breaks the linkage between our actions and our behaviors. I woke up at 4:30 this morning to be at the office by 6:00. Not because I wanted to but because I believed--correctly--that I had to be there by 6:00 and that failure to do so would be a 'career limiting move'. In other words, I behaved in a manner appropriate to the circumstances I held to be true--that my boss expected me to be in at 6:00 to be at a meeting with members of our organization in England.
Now, it may be that the link between the beliefs that someone holds and their actions is under-determined but I don't believe it is so. This means that if someone believes--holds to be true--that homosexual couples should not be allowed to be legally married because this or that divine being hates the very idea of homosexuals existing much less marrying then that person's behavior will be *very* different than one who, for instance, does not believe that the sensibilities of divine beings has no legitimate place in determining laws in a secular legal system. Perhaps it is because I grew up in an America where non-trivial numbers of the majority saw the color of my skin and determined, based upon that information, that their 'truth' was that I was an intellectual and moral inferior and that they should behave appropriately that I distrust the 'this is my truth' construction. I do not think it is benign and, in fact, I think it can lead to quite malevolent outcomes.
I'm curious, is there anyone here who believes that if N-number of Republicans hold to be true that Barack Obama is a Marxist, Mau-Mau, Islamic fascist, socialist who was born in Kenya and hates America does that mean that, in fact, Mr. Obama is obliged to BE those things. If someone believes these things to be true and it turns out that he is none of those things, doesn't that mean that someone holds a 'false' belief? There are no sane worlds (sane here meaning not self-contradictory) where Mr. Obama was both born in Kenya and born in Hawaii. If it is 'true' that he was born in Kenya then he is not the legitimate President nor can he ever be the legitimate President since the Constitution is quite clear on the matter. If it is not true then one may not like him, his party or his policies but that does not mean he is illegitimate.
I understand that 'that is my truth' is supposed to be a way of promoting dialog and tolerance but it fails to do the former and actually gives aid and comfort to bigotry since, for instance, a bigot can assert that it is her 'truth' that I am her mental and moral inferior and the *only* counter I have left to me is that my 'truth' is that I'm not--but no one should expect me to accede to statements about my own inferiority so there's no way for someone on the sidelines to adjudicate that. Meaning that outside of a 'well, my truth is that I don't like racism' is the *best* stance you can make. Again, if my being black is held by someone to be prima facie evidence on my mental and moral inferiority it is *entirely* appropriate, given the 'this is my truth', construction for them to act in the most racist manner since they are not being 'racist' by their own lights but acting in accordance with what they held to be true. To promote, pass or enforce laws or social norms that make that kind of behavior out of bounds is to violate the bigot's truth for no *good* reason.
Is that really the world people want because that is the world that elevating an opinion--even an incorrect one--to the level of 'truth' ineluctably creates.
Cheers
Aj
|