Beyond Truth and Lies

Is truth an achievable goal to strive for? We humans often take it for granted that the truth exists somewhere, that if two individuals disagree, one must be 'right' and the other 'wrong', in other words, that one person understands the objective truth, and the other is misguided, or basing their beliefs on flawed logic or incorrect facts. The issue with accepting this view of reality, is that it requires first accepting that absolute facts exist, statements which are incontrovertibly true. 

The question stands that if an objective truth exists, why haven't we found it yet? Even after 25,000 years of human  civilization, there is not a single fact that humans can agree on, with hundreds of vastly differing systems of thought on the basic nature of our existence. If absolute truths did exist, facts which could stand up to any scrutiny and could be proved beyond a modicum of doubt, would we not have found them yet? Should there not be a single axiom which cannot be countered, forms no paradoxes, and is objectively provable, upon which we can form a system of logic?

The great problem with empirical thought is the utter subjectivity of human experience, our consciousnesses exist within shells completely separate from the universe at large. The only method by which our solitary ego can interact with the outside world in which 'truth' may or may not exist, is through our senses. Our sense however, rarely represent accurately the true nature of our reality. Our mind is ultimately tyrant over our senses, and what we think about the world influences how we perceive it just as much as how it truly is. We see signs which confirm our beliefs all around us, and we reject that which we are unable to believe, this kind of perceptional bias is a fundamental part of our being, perhaps because we are still just apes who sometimes find it more important to be confident than to be right. When our ancestors heard a rustling in the underbrush, it was more important to flee as quickly as possible, than to prove or disprove by rigorous logic, the proposition that a tiger was about to leap out at them.

In many ways the arguments we find convincing say more about who we are, than the veracity of the information we are presented with. Perhaps because the universe we exist in is so lacking in true objectivity, that coming to our own personal conclusions is as easy as convincing ourselves that we understand the truth. Why is it that two highly intelligent individuals raised in opposing cultures, can have wildly differing ideas of what objective fact is? Yet they are both able to effectively argue their position and 'prove' why they are correct. Maybe truth is more of a signal of loyalty to ones 'tribe' that a true representation of anything, humans tend to have opinions much closer to that of their peers than of perceived outsiders, and these opinions only grow closer together the more kinship we feel with each other. Do we choose what we believe as a way to form an in-group among those we spend the most time with, not only our friends and family, but also with our social class and demographic peers. We see this trend clearly across the world, religious and political cohorts are often far more geographic than would make sense our beliefs are purely logical. It can also be seen intergenerationally, with individuals of the same ages agreeing far more than those across generations (While this is often attributed to advancing scientific knowledge or educational standards, it could also be attributed to the desire to distance oneself from older generations, while aligning one's beliefs with that of their social peers.)

The question then becomes, can a society function without a concept of absolute empirical truth? Do we need the collective goal of a truth which exists somewhere? Could a post-truth society survive? These questions are ultimately unsolvable, though it is possible that a post truth world would be a more enlightened one, without the arrogance of certainty or the hubris to believe oneself 'more correct' than everyone else.

With all that said, our experience as humans isn't defined by what we know, but by what we feel. A sunset is

beautiful whether the earth rotates around the sun, or the sun rotates around the earth. Our experiences are true to us as individuals in a way that no facts can be, because they exist within us and we can directly interact with them. Maybe then, what we perceive as true should be influenced by how those things make us feel. Maybe, by rejecting objectivity we can enrich our lives, by focusing of our subjective experience. Maybe believing whatever we want to believe is just as real as believing in anything can be.

Ending this essay with some from of concrete conclusion would of course be against the spirit of the exercise. To act like some truth has been gleaned from anything stated here would be unbelievably arrogant, nonetheless something valuable may be able to be gained by imagining a world where the truth doesn't matter. Because just like our ancestors believed so completely in ideas we find laughable today, none of our truths can be wholly without flaws. Yet, we can still believe things, even despite the understanding that they are unprovable, because they bring us joy, or ease the burden of living, or even because a concrete system of logic is comforting. Because if nothing is true, then nothing is false either, and that which we believe is true becomes that which is true.