What is Truth?

A serious problem characterizing the modern age is a lack of objective standards. This can be seen in a common philosophical idea expressed in many facets of modern life. From the advertisements of fast food restaurants containing, "Your way, right away," to the expressions in the movies and t.v. shows geared for children and teens where the young hero is exalted for being smarter than adults and thus does not need to listen to them, there is given the teaching that, "Whatever you want is reality, and that reality is good." Modern philosophy among the educated also contains this idea, such as the expression found in ethics, that there are only those things you do to make the others happy or those things you do to make yourself happy, thus negating the idea of accountability for what one does or believes since there is no moral or ethical law by which to measure our life beyond what we think.

It only takes a generation or two for these ideas to finish the process of forming the young and impressionable, ending at the final stage of these principles in the physical creation from the inward parts fed on the subjectivity of morals and ethics of the "We are the future of America" graduating class. As expressed above, we see it in all facets of our society, a perfect example able to be shown in the movies for both adults and children that malign those who hold to some sort of order as being mean - or worse yet - seedy and reprehensible. In fact, it is difficult to find a positive role model of lawfulness in such movies, for even the heroes buck the system in order to get the bad guy.

One obvious and negative byproduct of such a lack of objective standards is the conclusion reached in the summation of such philosophy (if not outright conscious realization by individuals) that there is no truth. After all, if reality is dependent on what I feel, think and want, then truth has six billion definitions. And if there is no truth anything is not only possible but permissible, for what I say is truth and cannot be denied me. This goes beyond anarchy and reaches towards absurd or Dadaistic nihilism.

It is easy to use an example to demonstrate the irrationality of this, which example a majority of the world will reject. "If I wanted to be a murderer and that is my personal standard, then it should be ok." To this and worse hypothetical standards most people will say, "You can do what you want as long as you don't hurt anyone." And here we have the basis for the argument of this article.

If we say a person can do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone, we are then asserting that there is an objective standard by which to measure the actions of the individual. Upon encountering such a conversation we may continue in the tradition of Socrates with, "What does it mean to hurt someone? Is that also dependent upon the individual to decide? If so, would that not mean I could justify murdering let's say a hobo as ending their suffering and thus murder is good?"

No, will be the common reply, murder is not allowed. You cannot kill the innocent. Thus the philosophical law, "We only need to do what makes us happy," comes under a condition, "as long as we do not kill innocent people."

But what other conditions are there? How about stealing, or rape, or child and spousal abuse? What about speeding in your car, doing drugs, bank fraud, or a simple lie? In fact, within the world of being true to only yourself and what makes you happy it is impossible to avoid living for the sake of others - or even one's own self - without objective standards to guide our actions.

The reality of daily life contradicts the philosophy taught from the highest levels of education down to the entertainment raising our children, and stands in opposition to the fads and messages greeting us from movies, commercials, and such like, even permeating our places of work and social gathering. We cannot live for only what makes us happy. It is not all good and not everything the individual believes or does is acceptable - even if it brings them some sense of fulfillment.

The struggle between the subjective and objective standard of truth is apparent everywhere we turn. There can only be one outcome from this silent war which has been growing for decades if not centuries. Either there will be a return to such an object standard of life as many cultures have had previous to the modern age, or there will be a complete breakdown of order and even decency, and naught but chaos will consume the world.

A question is born naturally from this subject, "What is the measuring stick spoken of?" That is not the subject of this article and it will not be discussed at this time. In a pluralistic global society it would be difficult to agree to all facets of moral and ethical measurement. As individuals it is somewhat different, in that we can scrutinize with sober reflection on what we truly believe and whether or not we should hold to it. Furthermore, we can search deep into what we discover about ourselves and even our culture and society to find the root of these standards and how they were originally held and practiced by our ancestors.

Such reflection and enquiry is enlightening and leads to true freedom. But it cannot be completed in an hour or a day. It takes effort over time and more than this, it takes a desire to know and understand. This desire is based on nothing more than loving truth, philosophy in its true sense, which is a product of love. If we were to find the source and cause of this love we would have a decent starting point for our delving into the attempt to answer the question, "What is truth?"

This question has ceased to be asked in the modern age. It was the ancient drive of our ancestors but now there is no need to search, for we are taught from childhood truth is no further than what I think it to be at any particular moment. It may be the return to the zeal to search for and know truth, which zeal is the product of love, will transform and unite us in a freedom as yet unheard of.