Truth is such a sonorous word. It resounds with a command and a power reserved for only supreme ideas, the beliefs which are immutable and not to be doubted. We are raised in a world governed by indisputable premises such as traditional ideas of what is right and wrong. Who are we to question the values and edicts laid down by our elders, time-honored institutions, and conventions as old as civilization?
Truth carries the weight of the sacred. It provides certainty, a bedrock of assuredness, a shelter from the storm of chaos and entropy buffeting our lives. All ambiguity, indecision, and insecurity can be soothed by pinning one’s life to that which is undeniably real, Truth.
Human endeavors are based on a foundation of what we believe to be true. Whether it is the legal system, organized religion, the art guild, or any of the other grand institutional structures of custom that coordinate and guide society. The throughline is that all such human entities are operated upon principles widely accepted to be true. Indeed, expressing and acting on statements of truth is the core essence of human motivation.
Despite the zeal associated with living by what is truth, skepticism nevertheless sneaks in and brings forth hesitancy. Is there really a truth from on high or is truth nothing more than a ploy to direct one’s thoughts and behaviors? In short, it is worth pondering whether there really is a Truth with a capital “T” or should truth be relegated to a collection of common mortal concepts, including value, justification, belief, inquiry, etc.?
There are two schools of thought pertaining to the veracity of truth. (For the sake of consistency, I will now refrain from spelling truth with a capital “T”. Note, no value judgment is to be inferred by this decision.) On the one hand is the belief truth is intrinsic — unshakably steadfast and independent from outside perceptions. On the other hand is the view truth is instrumental — a malleable concept that has at most practical utility for achieving certain ends.
Intrinsic truth is woven into the fabric of the universe. Truth in this context is an expression of the essence of existence. It is divine in its radiance. It is reliably resolute. Instrumental truth is patently human. Handled like a tool, truth is wielded in service to a mission of achieving usefulness, practicality, and attainment of a desired goal. If truth is not advantageous, then it loses significance.
Examples may help to clarify the distinction between these two renditions.
Intrinsic truth, which philosophers would place as a subset of Realism, is first and foremost mind-independent. Truths in the real world are valid whether there is a thinker or perceiver or not. For example, science is replete with laws and facts describing the world and universe as it is naturally or inherently. Newton’s First Law of Motion declares that an object at rest stays at rest while an object in motion remains in motion unless impacted by an outside force. Further, water boils at 100º centigrade and freezes at 0° centigrade. These events are everywhere considered true whether or not there is an observer to see these actions.
Beyond science there are agreed upon moral truths such as not killing a defenseless person, not enslaving another, and that honesty is better than lying or deception. Indeed, our entire legal system is premised on a belief that justice and fairness is a fundamental truth applicable in all cultures and transcending all time.
An instrumental or pragmatist position of truth discounts or flatly rejects an emphasis on linking truth to metaphysical reality. The value of truth is in its expediency and the benefit it provides to people. Returning to Newtonian science, truth is determined by how scientific laws and facts can be used to foretell future materialist conduct. This predictive capability leads to innovations and novel implementations. Because scientific laws assist people in solving problems, then they are true. Truth does not derive from a manifestation of the universe.
Occasionally intrinsic and instrumental appeals for truth commingle in a sense. To illustrate, let’s take religious belief. Many people of a religious persuasion may fully accept that God is the source of all truth. If God wants something, then it must be indubitably true. However, it is possible there could be church members who embrace religious truths simply because doing so results in more purposeful and satisfying lives regardless of any divine origins or attachments.
Given the duality of truth telling, if you will, what then it the version of truth that is the most authentic? Is truth a fundamental aspect of reality or is truth more of a serviceable construct for people to utilize as they see fit?
I take an all-of-the-above position on truth. Yes, I accept the Platonic notion of a primary and primitive essence to nature in which universal truths are to be found. And I acknowledge that truth is not always as absolutist as commonly proclaimed, but rather is adaptable and compliant as human needs arise.
Philosophers refer to a Platonic conception of the universe. This invention is rooted in the claim Plato made which is that reality consists of two domains, one a fixed and pure realm of perfect forms, the other a fluid and imperfect, but sensible and tangible physical world, influenced by, but not directly mirrored by the purity and perfection of the realm of forms. Plato went further to describe the cosmos as possessing an active soul, the purpose of which is to continually model the ideal when bringing order to earthly reality as we know it.
Admittedly, to accept Plato’s vision is to buy into a reality that is determined and transcendental. Religion would call it divine or heavenly. Within this specter lies what is at heart. It is the core of all substance and experience. It is here that intrinsic truth lies. And I agree it is real. To be clear, I am far from being sufficiently aware or at all mystical to characterize in detail a complete construct of the realm of pure forms. That said, I am comfortable in believing that a monistic and aboriginal oversoul is at play in manifesting reality.
The early Greek Stoics spoke of a generative spirit, a sacred principle that governs the universe. This energy puts order to the cosmos, nature, and indeed reality itself. It is in this Stoic term logos that I look for intrinsic truth.
As much as many of us would like to reserve truth for intrinsic purposes only, we must appreciate truth is often used as a cudgel for reaching an objective. When someone speaks of the need to adhere to the truth it is reasonable for any critical thinker to question the aims of any issuer of truth’s fidelity. For the word truth can be bantered about casually, if not carelessly.
Truth, as it turns out, lies singularly in the eyes of the beholder. This use of instrumentalism is nowhere more evident than in the practice of politics. This brings me to the comedian Stephen Colbert who in 2005 coined the term “truthiness”, a clever parody of instrumental truth. Colbert recognized and mocked a disingenuous tendency practiced by politicians, political parties, and their supporters. There is a predilection to disconnect truth from evidence, facts, logic, and instead align truth with emotions, gut feelings, and idiosyncratic notions. Truth becomes what feels good, not what can be rationally confirmed. Truth becomes what one wishes truth to be, not what can be factually demonstrated.
Here in America we see truthiness on full display with the rise of right-wing populism. Donald Trump has built a brand and a rise to power by being fast and loose with the veritable truth. I for one never know when to believe him, so it is sensible to just not take him for his word at all. And I am not alone. At least half of this country knows he is a liar, but he gets elected president, twice.
This brings us to a serious fault with instrumental truth. If a society cannot agree on what is real and true, then we are a house divided indeed. The rise of misinformation, disinformation, psychological manipulation, gaslighting, fear mongering, and all the rest fractures institutions, social trust, and civility. America is deep into this dark place right now.
American Pragmatism was a philosophical movement that began in the 1870s with the writings of Charles Sanders Peirce and it continued to be intellectually influential with thinkers and writers such as William James and John Dewey well into the twentieth century until the 1940s. A hallmark of the pragmatism movement journey was in placing credence into human practicality as the grounds for meaning and truth. Philosophy among the pragmatists held value in how well it solved day to day problems encountered by ordinary people. The Platonic ideal was rejected because it was seen as too abstract and removed from commonplace life. Pragmatism underscored the utility of thought through empiricism and experience. It greatly influenced American institutions in law, education, political theory, religion, and social progress.
The pragmatist movement judged truth by how well it solved problems over time. Claims of what is true were subjected to stringent inquiry and testing to determine how well their usefulness held up long term. Examples of this include William James’s “cash value” idea, which promoted labeling a concept true if it helps to bring success. When using a map for instance one would want to know if the map shows an accurate way to a desired destination. If it does, then the information on the map is true.
John Dewey introduced the theory of “warranted assertibility”. A scientific hypothesis could be considered true if the hypothesis withstood continual experimentation and inquiry and was always shown to deliver necessary and predictable results. C.S. Peirce also emphasized rigorous analysis of truth claims and was satisfied that assertions were true if a collective consensus emerged.
The level of instrumentalism essentially applied to truth by American Pragmatism is in the American blood, so to speak. Since intrinsic truth is not empirically verifiable, even for the faithful, then a collective harmony is desired for a society to best function. We are stuck with an instrumental view of the truth whether we like it or not.
Like many things in life, truth is a paradox. It is both rock solid, but also pliable. It can point us to the marrow of existence, but also to which product we should reserve consumer loyalty to. We can try clinging to truth for stability, but find the support has too much play in it. This I know, when anyone tells me something is true I will retain a healthy dose of skepticism. Although truth is a subjective interpretation, if we can largely agree on what is true we can work and live together. If not, then we are at odds.