Site hosted by Build your free website today!
I received this question regarding the previous piece on truth.  Not sure if the questioner was entirely serious, but since he asked...
"Which came first? Truth or Falsehood? And are Truth and Falsehood the SAME?"

I would have to think that TRUTH 'came first', because without truth we wouldn't even be able to EVALUATE the statement that "Falsehood came first".

"Bill Clinton is Chinese" - in order to be false - NEEDS the Truth that "Bill Clinton is Caucasian".

But "Bill Clinton is Caucasian" DOESN'T NEED the nonsense that "Bill Clinton is Chinese" to be proved true.

And, well, it should be obvious by now that truth and falsehood CANNOT be the same. Because even the sentence, "Truth and False are the same" is EITHER True OR False.

I would say it's false.

Note : When I say that Truth came 'first' I'm not referring so much to a SEQUENTIAL nor even a CHRONOLOGICAL issue but rather an ONTOLOGICAL one. This basically means that just like an artist has to 'be there' before his painting can possibly exist, Truth has to be 'present' before Falsehood can stand a chance of occuring. I don't mean to say that Truth CREATES Falsehood (and here is where the Artist/Picture analogy breaks down), simply that the REALITY of Truth is absolutely necessary without which Falsehood wouldn't have a life at all.

A painting requires the painter before it can ever be a reality.  Falsehood requires truth to be present before it can 'manifest' itself.

If a painting exists, that proves beyond doubt that a painter must have existed BEFORE. For falsehood to BE, Truth must have BEEN throughout.

(This may sound kinda 'mystical', but I think you get the point...)

In short, Falsehood is PARASITIC and its very existence demands that Truth MUST be present as well. The latter, however, can stand alone.

Back to Main Page