The question of truth is one of clarity, not value. Truth, in its essence, is independent of the observer, independent of preference, independent of the terms we use to describe it. It stands alone, inviolate, waiting to be discovered.
But herein lies the problem: language, that fragile tool we use to navigate the world, often betrays us.
We misappropriate definitions, and with that misappropriation comes confusion, misunderstanding, and, in some cases, a deviation from the truth itself.
Consider how easily one may declare a proposition true, but what is meant by 'true'?
Is it empirical?
Is it logical?
Or is it merely an assertion of one’s values disguised as an objective statement?
The trouble with argumentation is that many engage in it not to seek truth but to impose their values, cloaked in the rhetoric of truth. Yet values, while integral to one's life, are subjective and mutable; truth is not.
Arguments about truth can reveal facts; this is undeniable. But when we introduce value into the equation—when one argues not for truth but for a preferred outcome—the entire exercise can become pointless.
One can discover a fact and still find that it lacks the expected resonance because it does not align with one’s values. Thus, while truth may be discovered, it does not, by itself, provide meaning. Meaning is drawn from our values.
The crucial distinction, then, is to avoid conflating truth with value. Truth requires the rigour of reason, of examining facts without bias.
Value, however, brings with it bias, and if one is not careful, this bias can distort one’s perception of truth. Hence, in arguments where truth is sought, values must remain unstated. They may provide personal significance but not factual clarity.
Otherwise, the pursuit of truth becomes mired in subjectivity, and the conversation is rendered void of purpose.
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 18, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1847283975888441526?t=K1TWJhowLrJQ61-Q4XAqRA&s=19
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1504
But herein lies the problem: language, that fragile tool we use to navigate the world, often betrays us.
We misappropriate definitions, and with that misappropriation comes confusion, misunderstanding, and, in some cases, a deviation from the truth itself.
Consider how easily one may declare a proposition true, but what is meant by 'true'?
Is it empirical?
Is it logical?
Or is it merely an assertion of one’s values disguised as an objective statement?
The trouble with argumentation is that many engage in it not to seek truth but to impose their values, cloaked in the rhetoric of truth. Yet values, while integral to one's life, are subjective and mutable; truth is not.
Arguments about truth can reveal facts; this is undeniable. But when we introduce value into the equation—when one argues not for truth but for a preferred outcome—the entire exercise can become pointless.
One can discover a fact and still find that it lacks the expected resonance because it does not align with one’s values. Thus, while truth may be discovered, it does not, by itself, provide meaning. Meaning is drawn from our values.
The crucial distinction, then, is to avoid conflating truth with value. Truth requires the rigour of reason, of examining facts without bias.
Value, however, brings with it bias, and if one is not careful, this bias can distort one’s perception of truth. Hence, in arguments where truth is sought, values must remain unstated. They may provide personal significance but not factual clarity.
Otherwise, the pursuit of truth becomes mired in subjectivity, and the conversation is rendered void of purpose.
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 18, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1847283975888441526?t=K1TWJhowLrJQ61-Q4XAqRA&s=19
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1504
Comments
Be the first to add a comment
Log in to comment