Does Literature "Tell The Truth" Better Than the Arts or Other Areas of Knowledge?

The search for truth is a function that is innate in most people whether we realize it or not. We turn to literature, the arts, religion, science and other areas of knowledge for these truths. However, we are also advocators of efficiency and thus are inclined to label which particular area can "tell the truth" better than the others. This then sidetracks our focus from discovering truths to distinguishing what "telling the truth" exactly means. With different interpretations of what "telling the truth" implies, different areas of knowledge would come out on top.

If "telling the truth" only means presenting or revealing the truth, then whichever area that does so the clearest and in the most appealing fashion would be considered the best at telling the truth. Literature, at many times, is considered an art itself and as Nobel Prize winner for literature, Harold Pinter, stated in his 2005 Nobel lecture, "the real truth is that there never is any such thing as one truth to be found in dramatic art. There are many." If literature, specifically dramatic literature, can present its audience with many truths at one time, then it is telling those truths better than any other area of knowledge. What allows literature to tell these truths so easily is that it is able to take these truths and recreate it in its own context so that it would be more appealing to digest for the audience. For example, although history has documented the history of Julius Caeser, it wasn't until William Shakespeare's play that all of the truths behind Caeser's history were presented to the public in a way in which was much more appealing. One truth that many believe to have come from literature would be the discovery of the Moral Law. In one of his essays, "Tragedy and the Common Man", Arthur Miller states that "The discovery of the moral law, which is what the enlightenment of tragedy consists of, is not the discovery of some abstract or metaphysical quantity." According to Miller and other authors, there are truths that aren't quantitative but probably more qualitative. Despite being more enjoyable to read and having less limitations of knowledge, Pinter continued to say in his lecture:

"Truth in drama is forever elusive¡­These truths challenge each other, recoil from each other, reflect each other, ignore each other, tease each other, are blind to each other. Sometimes you feel you have the truth of a moment in your hand; then, it slips through your fingers and is lost."

Some may argue that effectively "telling the truth" should not leave any sense of ambiguity around the truths that may cause the intended audience to draw any "non-truth" conclusions. The audience would then be formulating these conclusions based off of uncertainty as well as letting their personal biases play a larger role. This can create many problems with their knowledge pertaining to that particular subject.

Supporters of science as being the paragon area of knowledge for presenting truth could argue that the best way to "tell the truth" would be to have concrete answers and formulas that leave no room for questioning or doubt. Without the room for uncertainty, sciences have the highest ratio of truths to misinterpretations. These statements logically flow to the conclusion that science "tells the truth" better than the arts or any other areas of knowledge. Of course there are theories that have not yet been proven, but because they are labeled as "theories", the public will know that there's the possibility of it not being true. It acts like a disclaimer notice the scientists and mathematicians give the public. A scientist could also argue that science tells the truth better by bringing up false truths assumed by influential intellects who failed to incorporate proper science into their logic such as many of Aristotle's scientific shortcomings. Probably the most famous being his claim that an object of heavier mass would fall faster than an object of lighter mass in a vacuumed state. On the contrary, Aristotle did help establish many foundations of modern science. Despite being more accurate than other areas, many have argued against science as being limited in the truths that they provide. CS Lewis writes in his book, "Mere Christianity":

"Science works by experiments. It watches how things behave¡­ And the more scientific a man is, the more (I believe) he would agree with me that this is the job of science-and a very useful and necessary job too. But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes-something of a different kind-this is not a scientific question."

Lewis, like many others that believe truth is much more than empirical data and observations from science, has turned to other alternatives that can "tell the truth" better than other areas of knowledge. His source for truth eventually became religion, Christianity to be precise, despite being one of its largest critics when he was younger.

Those who turn to religion often times are searching for truth that is greater than this world that they live in-at least for Christianity and other monolithic religions. The reason as to why they turn to religion varies greatly from person to person and is often regarded as a personal choice. However, in most cases, there usually involves an epiphany or some type of realization that they are either "lost" or "lacking the truth". Many argue that religion "tells the truth" better because of all the ambiguities and uncertainties that come along with it that forces them to put faith into their religion. A famous anonymous quote states, "What kind of God would He be if He can be narrowed down into a comprehendible scientific equation or reasoned out through human logic?" By using reason to conclude that reason alone cannot fully grasp the concept of God and truth often times leads to the followers to take a "leap of faith" while others accept religion through apologetics-particularly the Christian apologetics-to provide enough historical truths and logical reasoning for them to search for the truth in that religion. Either way, they all come to one common truth: their life on earth is temporary and they life continues in some sort of an afterlife.

Any conclusion supporting one area of knowledge over another that can be drawn from the discussion above won't be a complete conclusion and probably never will. As previously stated, it depends on the interpretation of "tell the truth" that really determines which aspect of knowledge is better. We cannot solely base a conclusion on any one interpretation since the interpretations have merit and some truth within themselves. Again in his Nobel lecture, Pinter explains:

"You never quite find [truth] but the search for it is compulsive. The search is clearly what drives the endeavor. The search is your task. More often than not you stumble upon the truth in the dark, colliding with it or just glimpsing an image or a shape which seems to correspond to the truth, often without realizing that you have done so."

Whether it's the boundless possibilities, the empirically tested and calculated results, or the spiritual bonds, truth will be found whether we're looking for it or not.