Truth, by David Westfall

Truth
By David Westfall

Truth is a concept that has existed among cultures of any origin since the beginning of recorded history. In the dictionary truth is defined as conformity to fact, or to reality. And also it can mean a statement proven to be true. However, more importantly, it also defines truth as “sincerity; integrity”, and “fidelity to an original or standard”. Truth by our definition is more than mere fact—it is also based on the actions of human beings to conform their lifestyles to accept that fact. In turn, the dictionary defines ‘truthfulness’ not only as honest, and consistent in telling the truth, but also as “corresponding to reality; true”. Being truthful, then, is not only the quality of being consistently honest—it is the quality of being consistently true. Therefore to lie is to not acknowledge reality. By this definition, it certainly seems very foolish.

Virtue Theory and the Greeks

One subject eminent among ancient philosophers was virtue theory. This is the view that morality in its basic form is based on the possession of good character or virtues. Good people, it was reasoned, will therefore have many virtues. This is directly in line with later Christian views that one cannot be judged by other men based on what he says, or on his inward qualities. The only medium for tapping into those inner workings is action, which the Greeks acknowledged here. They decided that thought was more or less unimportant in this case, since all that mattered was whether or not those thoughts translated into untruthful or truthful actions—vices and virtues. Some of these ‘virtue theorists’ describe even up to 100 traits which contribute to making someone a good person. Many of these would later be called the ‘Cardinal Virtues’ by the culture of Medieval Europe when Greek philosophy encountered a revival and rise in popularity.

Greeks also emphasized that these traits, and a sense of moral competence through virtue, was received at a very young age, and not when one was old. They viewed the most formative years in a person’s life as the earliest, as most of us do today. So through careful education youth are trained to be virtuous, often through learning from their missteps, through punishment. This, as many will agree, is still a defining characteristic of a child’s upbringing today. In all of this, adults—particularly fathers—are given the moral responsibility of instilling honesty, truthfulness, virtue, and a desire to do good in the young. According to the Greeks, overall failure for the youth to accept the teacher’s good will for him can only result in vices. Some of these are vanity, pride, lawlessness, and insensibility.

These, of course, will take the form of negative actions. If the Greeks are correct about virtue theory, and if they are also correct that vices will quickly manifest themselves in action, then those who are not virtuous and truthful will ultimately be bad people, who do lawless and wrongful things.

The earliest example of philosophical thinking based on virtue theory was Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, where he argues that moral virtues and truthfulness regulate and determine one’s desires. This is entirely consistent with the Greek view that our actions are the best reflection of our thoughts.

Later on in Greek history, Aristotle's virtue ethics competed with other theories, particularly with Stoicism—a Roman creation. However, as previously mentioned, virtue theory ultimately won out and encountered a strong revival in European Medieval thought. It was strongly endorsed by Medieval philosopher Thomas Aquinas, among others. Also added to these were some Christian theological values such as faith, hope, and charity. Then as the Middle Ages came to a close, making way for the Renaissance and Humanist movements, the influence of Aristotle's virtue ethics declined.

To summarize, the Greeks viewed truth as synonymous with virtue. A virtuous person is virtuous because he acknowledges truth, is always honest, and recognizes dishonesty as a vice to be eliminated. The Greeks recognize truth as something fixed which must be taught carefully to the youth, in order to encourage a moral lifestyle. Because actions were viewed as the only means by which to pass judgment on another human being, one could reason that someone is honest based on his numerous virtues, and could in turn reason that someone is dishonest based on his numerous vices. These—vices and virtues—were the manifestation of a man’s acceptance or rejection of truth. This acceptance or rejection would ultimately determine what kind of man one would become. Those who were accepting were strong, lawful, honest and obedient. Those who were not accepting were cowardly, insensible, unjust, and vain.

Roman Stoicism

Another philosophy that has shaped our perception of truth and honesty is stoicism. This Roman school of thought set the goal of life as living in agreement with nature. Famous stoics included Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, and Epictetus—all prominent Roman figures. In stoicism were three different doctrines: logic, physics, and ethics. For our purposes, we will be primarily examining ethics.

Stoicism, when approaching ethics, is strongly based on two main concepts. The first of these is the concept of absolute truth and immutable law governing the universe. In this it is much like Aristotelian and Christian thought. However, this immutable law also cannot permit any exceptions (especially regarding the laws of physics, which renders things like miracles impossible to the traditional stoic mind).

Second is the notion that at its most basic form, human nature is based on reason. An old stoic maxim states that we must “live according to nature”. Beyond meaning that we must live in accordance with the physical laws of the universe, this also means that we ought to conform our actions to our very own, basic nature—reason. This is less in tune with Christian thought, which regards human nature as deficient and lacking in its moral competence. It is, however, more compatible with Greek thought regarding the concept of vices and virtues, because the Greeks did not speak clearly of a human inclination toward one or the other (at least not in virtue theory). The Greeks viewed virtue as something taught.

Because it is impossible to live against the law of the universe (rules regarding how the physical world behaves, which do not change), the only concept that could govern virtue is the second, regarding human reason. Virtue and truthfulness exist in relation to absolute truth that does not change as well. The stoic regarded living truthfully as living in a way which subordinated oneself to the larger cosmic order. Living in accordance with nature, in other words. Because stoics viewed human nature as the natural inclination to reason, dishonesty took on an even more foolish sense than it did in Greek philosophy. It was not based at all on instruction—here it was seen as denying ones very own nature.

While stoicism believed strongly in absolute truth and immutable laws of right and wrong, it was also thought that the passions and appetites have their place in the human organism. Suppression and full renunciation was therefore not required, but merely controlled by reason. It did not impose any strict guidelines of a moral lifestyle on its followers. To be a stoic and to be a truthful stoic merely meant adhering to one’s own nature.

In summary, the stoics regarded truth as an integral component of human nature. It was the natural inclination of every man or woman to adhere to natural law. Violating the natural law of ethics, that all are supposedly inclined to from birth, is to violate one’s very own nature. In stoicism, however, this adherence takes on a somewhat vague sense, as it is based of our own natural inclination. There were no strict moral guidelines governing human action or human desire—instead, nearly anything was permitted, but all in moderation. Truth was a matter of self-discovery and acknowledgment of personal inclination.

The Enlightenment and Immanuel Kant

The Enlightenment was a massive societal movement of the 18th century which played a profound role in shaping the face of western thought for the centuries to come. It began in Europe, a direct product of the Renaissance movement, and more specifically of 15th and 16th century humanist thought. Here was developed a skepticism and distrust toward authority, human or divine. Individual reason was uplifted where institutional authority had formerly been accepted.

Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher who lived during the Enlightenment, in the 1700’s. His most important work was The Critique of Pure Reason, regarding metaphysics and epistemology.

Both of these, the movement and the man, influenced the modern view of truth, and whether or not truthfulness and virtue are immutable standards, or if they are largely in the eye of the beholder. According to Immanuel Kant, a central epistemological problem for philosophers was trying to discover how people can escape from the confines of the finite, small human mind in order to gain knowledge of the world around us. They were trying to find ways to access ultimate truths, while he used a very different approach.

The philosophies of previous thinkers were categorized into two groups: a posteriori reasoning, and a priori. The former of these determined that one could access truth through experience—that one could only understand reality by experiencing it. The latter is based on concepts indicated, not discovered through experience. The word ‘evil’ has an automatic, negative connotation to it without one having to go out and experience evil.

Two primary philosophical schools of thought regarding these groups of reasoning preceded Kant—empiricism and rationalism. The first declared that the human mind is essentially a blank slate onto which our identities, and the meaning of truth itself, is written. Human knowledge and truth originates from human sensations—pleasure, anger, pain, joy, sorrow, and so forth. The second philosophy (rationalism) stated that the basic truths of human existence were present in the mind from the beginning, and that one only had to transcend the unnecessary confines of physical being to discover them.

Immanuel Kant felt that these two distinctions of knowledge were inadequate to understand truth. He divided truth into two types as well, but they were different from a posteriori and a priori reasoning. In addition, a distinction was required between synthetic and analytic truth. Analytic truth is what one would observe. A statement such as “I exist” would fit this category. Synthetic truth is based on classification by the human mind. In addition to saying “I exist”, it would add “…at a height of six feet, three inches”. It is merely a human construction to describe and perceive the world in a way that helps one comprehend it by giving it magnitude or severity.

According to the Rationalist and Empiricist philosophies, the mind is passive. This is because it either possesses complete ideas ready for analysis, or because it is given ideas, imprinted onto a blank slate. Kant's argument against this is to state that experience of truth and reality is only possible if the mind provides a clear structuring in the way it comprehends analytic truths (reality), or synthetic truths (representations). The Empiricists’ and Rationalists’ theories only took into account the mind's interaction with the world, and not the effect the mind could have on the world.

To summarize, truth is a very complex concept in the eyes of Immanuel Kant and the larger Enlightenment era. It is based on reality, and on immutable truths, but within this are conjured truths, constructs of the human mind to assist us in perceiving something better. What one will immediately notice is that these types of truth speak mainly of the physical, and not of the metaphysical. Kant precisely argued that we cannot have knowledge of anything beyond the physical through our own perception. Eternal truths of morality, created by God or by some kind of higher power, cannot be understood by human effort alone.

This view of truth does not strongly address the topic of honesty. However, from these philosophies, one may infer several things about absolute truth and truthfulness.
• The only way that one may know of absolute truth is through revelation by whatever power in the universe controls truth. Otherwise, the human mind is left to grasping futilely at things only physical with no greater meaning behind them.
• Honesty and virtue would then be based on a higher set of realities than what we find in the physical world. Humans must be given truth, must have it provided by an authority such as God. Then this higher power may choose to judge them based on their compliance with truth.

Christian Truth

Throughout this explanation of truth we have seen continual reference to Christianity and its views. To close, we will examine the relationship that the Christian faith has with these other ideas about truth and honesty.

Christianity is, as most will acknowledge, a religion of ultimate truths. Christians believe in immutable facts of the universe that cannot ever be changed. Namely, in the presence of an eternal creator God who views all of temporal existence from an aloof perspective, who is divided into three parts: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

This triune (three in one) God, as just mentioned, is aloof from a temporal aspect to His nature. However, this does not rule out his interference with time—something equally important to Christian belief. Christians believe that by human measurement of time (which he is not constrained by), he has always existed, still exists, and always will exist.

The Christian belief in God’s un-temporal nature may appear to be a minor point, but it actually has a profound effect on the Christian view of truth. Because he does not exist in terms of living from one moment to the next, he does not change his mind. This is why Christian truth is eternally fixed, never revisable, and never prone to addition or subtraction. In a temporal sense, what appears later may not contradict what has been revealed before. For example, Messianic Jews are still bound by laws of ritual purity from the Old Testament, while Gentile Christians are not. Instead this previously unreached group of humans is given a supreme commandment: love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, and all your strength. And also love your neighbor as yourself. These two encompass and support all other teachings of Christianity.

In addition to these two primary commandments, all Christians are still bound by moral laws of the Old Testament. This means that in addition to the new covenant founded with them by God, they must also adhere to God’s moral teachings of old. Chief among these are commandments regarding treatment of others, sexual purity, idolatry, and impure thought. All of these are furthermore supported by the two primary Christian commands (loving God and loving one’s neighbor). Because these laws speak of the nature of humans as a species, instead of their citizenship among God’s chosen people (the Jews), they must be accepted by both.

Therefore what new things Christians learn about God cannot contradict the old. This means that the Christian faith, and the Christian view of truth, is built upon millennia of revelation by God. And with what has been revealed so far, Christians have a blueprint for a moral lifestyle.

To a Christian, being truthful is as simple as not making false statements, as much as it is about accepting Jesus Christ as the son of God and Savior of humanity. But living in truth extends beyond not lying—it also means living one’s life in light of the sacrificial act made by Jesus, taking the world’s sins onto himself. This is done by loving God, and by loving one’s neighbors. Lying extends into both of these relationships. When one lies to another person, he demonstrates a rebellious way of thinking, which denies God’s call on all men to be truthful. And in doing so he dishonors his neighbor by misleading him. One who lies is then defined by deceit, a satanic characteristic (this ‘deceit’ is why Christians believe sinful human nature is brought forth by the devil).

Therefore, for Christians, lying does not merely mislead. It separates a person from God by indirectly sending a message that one does not accept God’s commandments. It is making a statement that the relationship offered for men to have with God, through Jesus, does not interest that person.