I had a conversation with a relative recently and we were discussing how fraught social media is (no one else has noticed this yet, we are true groundbreakers).
We came to the conclusion that the divisiveness we are all experiencing isn’t necessarily wilful, but that our algorithms are actually feeding us all completely different information (I mean, I do think there is a huge degree of bad faith mischaracterisation of the ‘other’ with whom we disagree, but aside from that, I do agree about the algorithm. It’s a beast).
We aren’t seeing the same news.
We aren’t starting from an objective truth and making our conclusions from that.
In fact, what is objective truth- and why does it even matter?
This is a philosophical defence of objective truth, and why it not only still exists, but it is good for us to pursue it, and I believe it is far superior to a world governed by pure subjectivity.
This blog is going to be pretty simplistic because there are all kinds of philosophical conversations around these topics, but I am a laywoman, and this is a thought for anyone to grasp.
Ok. Definitions.
Objective truth: This philosopher sums it up: Objective truths are “Truths that are independent of us and our language, conventions, beliefs, attitudes, and social practices”
These are things we can discover. Truth isn’t decided, it’s found. It exists whether we realise it or are totally ignorant of it, and our feelings don’t influence whether it is true or not.
The author asserts that “the notion of objective truth is what anchors all serious, clear-headed inquiry, and without it the distinction between science and pseudoscience breaks down.”
‘“Objective’ means: based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings.”
This psychologist notices the difference here: “To counter the rise of narcissism, we must see a distinction between personal truth and objective truth. They can coexist. When they do coexist, objective truth becomes a tuning fork, guiding a nation of personal truth holders, not to forfeit their personal truths, but to recognize that there are objective truths on which we can agree.”
I would go a step further than this author and say we need a total reframe of even naming it ‘personal truth’
We can’t have individual, fractured ‘mini truths’ that belong to ourselves. If truths belong primarily to individuals and are partially true (true for them, not true for me) they aren’t true. It’s absurd. We have personal experiences. Those, we can own. Those, we can share powerfully. Those are very subjective. There is no ‘your truth’ and ‘my truth’ only ‘THE truth’ and ‘my experiences’ the latter of which are shaped by many factors: knowledge, personality, emotions, upbringing, values, the list goes on.
Subjective truth: ‘Subjective’ means: influenced by or based on personal beliefs or feelings, rather than based on facts.
Subjective ‘truths’ can change, based on new information, perspective, and experiences. It is ever-shifting.
Here' are some examples of why this distinction matters when it plays out:
A person can have a horrendous experience with their parents; a strict dad, or a cruel mother. Because of their experience, it might lead them to assume a broader belief: That fatherhood is a power construct that is designed to control and oppress children, or that motherhood is cruel and mothers are evil.
See how experience shapes what we believe to be true? But when we look at experiences in context, for this person, it’s more like:
The experience of my own dad was he was far too strict, but that isn’t all fathers, and that doesn’t accurately capture what fatherhood is. Just because my mum was cruel doesn’t mean all mothers are cruel. Experience, perspective, opinion= highly valuable, worth listening to, has an important place in shaping our communities.
This person could tell the truth and share their perspective about their parents cruelty and the emotional impacts on them. But experience has a context and a subjectivity that means we treat it differently than we treat objective truths.
I read a book recently that was a first hand account of a war zone.
It was harrowing; and it bothered me. The author repeatedly kept claiming to be ‘telling the truth’ of her people, yet omitted really important objective facts that provide context about what she was observing. I felt the book was designed to tug on the emotions of the reader without providing them the facts to shape what they understood about the story (A journalist documenting life in Gaza, without once mentioning the word ‘Hamas’ or mentioning the Israeli hostages in tunnels; pieces of incredibly important context for what was playing out. No mention at all of her own governments role in the conflict, which would leave the reader under the false assumption that Israel was prosecuting a war for absolutely no reason, which she essentially suggested repeatedly throughout the book).
When we reject even the idea of objective truth existing, all we have left is a grapple for power: who can shout the loudest? They must be telling the truth. Who can use emotive enough language to sway people’s feelings towards them? Without an anchor in what is factually and objectively true, this is the world we have left. It’s a dark place. And no wonder our world is completely on fire if this is the way things work.
Here’s what I think would benefit all of us: What if we, on all sides, came to an agreement: That objective reality exists, that we may be ignorant of it but that it is discoverable, and that the pursuit of it leads us all into a much better place?
“When we disregard facts in favor of opinion, we give license to those who wish to rewrite history and justify the most heinous actions. Thus, our fight is not simply against falsehood – it is for the clarity and power of truth itself.”
Jesus himself suggested the truth sets us free (free from personal chains? from believing lies? from being mislead? from the cage of our limited experiences?)
John 8: 31-32 “So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
Even knowing there is a truth out there outside of myself takes huge pressure off me trying to create my own truth. It helps me realise I encounter the world through lenses that can distort how I see things, so produces a kind of humility. It also frees me to know that the truth shines a light on everyone, everywhere, not just exposing ‘one side’ but illuminating everything clearly. All are at the mercy of the truth. I want to live this way. I want to be prepared to face ‘the truth’ even if it exposes things in me. I am not afraid of the truth.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn writes striking things about the impact of lies: “Our way must be: Never knowingly support lies! Having understood where the lies begin (and many see this line differently)—step back from that gangrenous edge! Let us not glue back the flaking scales of the Ideology, not gather back its crumbling bones, nor patch together its decomposing garb, and we will be amazed how swiftly and helplessly the lies will fall away, and that which is destined to be naked will be exposed as such to the world.”
We can all have different opinions about reality. We can interpret things differently. But we cannot deny facts or do away with the idea that object truth exists and is really very important. When we do, personal ‘truths’ and lies reign supreme and produce the chaos of a fractured world.
Cling to the pursuit of truth. Re-align your subjectivity up with truth. Let it bow before truth outside of yourself. The truth will set you free.