TRUTH

“What is truth?”
(Pontius Pilate to Jesus of Nazareth)

John 18:38

Truth is what it is,
and it remains being true
regardless of how you look at it.
Antonio Machado

It is almost impossible to carry
the torch of truth through a crowd
without charring somebody’s beard.
Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

My way of joking is to tell the truth.
It is the funniest joke in the world.
George Bernard Shaw,
John Bull’s Other Island (1907) act 2

When Jesus of Nazareth was sent to Pontius Pilate, after hearing Him say “I was born for this and I came to the world for this: to testify to the truth”, ([i]) Pilate suddenly asked “What is truth?”. The drama of the scene is that he had it right there in front of his face. But he did not see it. He did not recognize Truth in a person who embodied it to the point of letting Himself be crucified for it.

And yet, somehow he managed to understand it, at least to a certain extent; because otherwise it would not make sense that after putting this question – maybe in a rather sarcastic and sceptic tone – he went out to tell the Jews: “I found no guilt in Him”. In this way, Pilate ended up telling a positive truth. For, as we all know the defendant whose crucifixion they demanded was absolutely innocent.

Every person of honour has the duty to abide by the truth. Of being truthful. And being truthful does not mean to know and understand the absolute truth of all things. It simply means to recognize, accept and affirm what is, as it is and as you know it. Pontius Pilate did not grasp the theological Truth represented by Jesus of Nazareth. But he did understand the truth of His innocence and he was truthful by stating it. He did give in to the circumstantial pressures, but that belongs to another context and I have dealt with that elsewhere. ([ii])  The point is that keeping to the truth means to keep to what is, just the way it is; without additions nor restrictions; in the entire and complete wholeness in which it appears before us.

I realize that this goes against current mainstream opinion. It happens to be that nowadays there is a trend towards exaggerated relativism. As if an illegitimate extrapolation from the theory of relativity could justify relativism in everything we know and perceive. Even truth itself.  André Maurois went as far as saying that the only absolute truth was that truth is relative. And that is wrong, no matter how many times some intellectuals repeat it and regardless of how widely it is upheld as a sort of proof of generous tolerance.

To begin with, truth sustains itself. It does not depend on opinion. It does not depend on someone discovering, proclaiming or accepting it. It is not affected even if somebody denies it. Just to give a rough and surely not entirely appropriate example: two plus two will still be four even if the whole world does not realize it and even if someone insists drearily in maintaining that it is five. What is does not need anything but its own condition to be. Relativism pretends to make us believe that the whole Universe is nothing but a set of relative phenomena whereas reality shows that events – at least some of them – can be relative, but the Universe is in spite of that relativity, and it would continue being the same (given that there is no other) if events were to interact differently. I myself would surely be different if I had received a different education or lived in a different environment, or if I had been born and raised in a different country. But I would not be someone else. I would still be who I am. Perhaps – and only perhaps – I simply would be who I am in a different way.

Furthermore: absolute truth exists. What today is called “relative truth” is nothing but a wrong expression to indicate a personal interpretation, or a partial knowledge, or even a wrong perception of absolute truth. In fact, if you think seriously about it, it is not too hard to understand that if there is no absolute truth, then there would be no “relative” truths either. And even if there could be such thing as a relative truth in an absolutely relative world, then this relative truth would not make any sense at all. You would not have anything with which to judge against. An absolutely relative Universe would be absolutely incomprehensible.

What today we call “relative” truth – and I insist: we do it in quite an improper way because the relationship is never clear (relative to what?) – is nothing but a more or less perfect and accomplished, or a more or less partial and imperfect approximation to that absolute truth which eludes us in most difficult or far-reaching issues.

To acknowledge that truth exists, to accept the presence of truth and sustain truth just as it appears to us, that is precisely what allows us to be truthful.

Now, as we have seen, since in order to be truthful it is not necessary to understand the absolute truth of all things, being truthful does not mean being free of every possible error. However, this still does not mean that truthfulness need be disguised – or “relativized” – forcibly with adjectives in order to achieve political correctness and social acceptability. Truth does not require that we excuse ourselves for expressing it by saying that it is only “our” truth; as if it were a costume suited to fit anyone. As if it would be possible that there could exist something like “my” truth, “your” truth, “his/her” truth, and all the respective plurals. By simple and elemental mathematical logic, if A is equal to John’s B and John’s B is equal to C, then if Peter’s B is not equal to John’s B it also will not be equal to A or C. It is of course quite possible for both John’s and Peter’s “B’s” to contain or represent partial aspects of A and C.  But in that case, the error is at the beginning, and we should not then say that A is equal to John’s or Peter’s B.

Nowadays this kind of underestimation by using possessive pronouns is widely used as a kind of discretion and modesty. Actually, it is plain cowardice, if not poorly disguised hypocrisy. We should never excuse ourselves for being truthful. Because being truthful means nothing but to acknowledge, accept and affirm what is, exactly as it is understood and known by us; without pre-judgment, preconditions, omissions or additions. To be truthful means to state reality exactly as we have lived, known and experienced it. There is no reason to apologize or to belittle yourself for that.

No doubt, while being truthful we can still make mistakes. But to apologize in advance, given the possibility that perhaps we can make a mistake, that is something that makes no sense and only undermines our own convictions. Really truthful people are committed to truth. Consequently, they do not have any trouble at all in amending and correcting their mistakes adhering to a truth that is superior to the original. On the contrary: usually it is the lie that you must try to hide or disguise with false modesty. And when that lie is in danger of collapsing, it has to be bolstered, in which case what you usually do is resort to additional lies even greater than the first one. In this way what you achieve is a mistake that grows instead of waning.

I freely admit that I can make mistakes. Of course I can! But I am not too worried about that because, if I am committed to truth, then as soon as I realize my error or as soon as somebody points it out to me, I will immediately and without pretext correct it. I would worry only if I were to compromise in lies. Because when those lies are discovered I will have no choice but to try to defend myself by expanding them and adding arguments in order to maintain their credibility.

Also, among many other things, this is why, in the words of Sophocles, truth is more powerful than reason; or, as Miguel Unamuno agreed: “to be true” is much more important than “to be right”. More than 2000 years ago, the Greek sophists already knew that reason can be quite tricky when it comes to truth. It will always be possible to find good arguments to defend a lie. Sophists – at least most of them – were experts in defending false thesis with flawless arguments. That is why somebody who is right, is not necessarily also truthful. He might be right, but he will not necessarily be on the side of truth.

Consequently, even though the duty of an honourable person  towards truth does not require a full knowledge of absolute Truth, it does however indeed imply the obligation of not resorting to falsehood in order to be right. Pontius Pilate yielded to the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth because of the political pressures which he was exposed to. That was his crime or, if you prefer: his serious fault. But he did not find Him guilty and he ordered the crucifixion of an innocent Man clearly stating that He was innocent. That was his merit. Some Orthodox Christians hold Pilate and his wife Claudia Procula as saints. As for me personally, that might be a slight overstatement; but the line of reasoning behind the criteria is not too hard to grasp.

We are not truthful solely when we have acquired a universal truth. We are truthful when we honestly and sincerely give testimony of our experiences and of the knowledge we have gained from them. On the contrary, we are untrue when our testimony does not match our behaviour or when it goes against our real beliefs.

A person of honour, committed to truth, simply does not preach what he does not believe, does not take credit for something he has not done, nor does he behave contrary to what he proclaims.

As you can see, it is hard. Maybe even very tough…

But not that complicated.

[ii] )- Denes Martos, Los Deicidas at www.denesmartos.com.ar