Truth, Language & Reality

By -

 The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth

truth anchors language to reality


I hope I am never required, whether under oath or secular affirmation, to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I would have to refuse, on logical grounds. If 'truth' is to mean anything at all, it can only mean 'that which is', in other words, reality, expressed in language. And there is the first problem. Reality is infinitely more complex and subtle than any human language, which fact in itself makes nonsense of the phrase 'the whole truth'. There are not enough hours in the day to state the whole truth even about something as simple as entering a room. Nope, 'the whole truth' has to go, as a logically unsound concept. That was easy, but what about 'the truth'?
The problem here is human fallibility in both perception and memory. I can say, "She was wearing a purple jumper". But was she? Maybe it was blue. Maybe it was a cardigan. The likelihood of making an untrue statement is high and gets higher with elapsed time and with the complexity of the described event. I can of course say, "I think she was wearing a purple jumper". That is a true statement even if her jumper was scarlet, in fact, even if she wasn't there at all. However, it is only a statement about what I believe, which might be completely false.
It is therefore unreasonable to require someone to swear to tell the truth since no-one is immune from stating accidental falsehoods. It is, however, perfectly in order to require someone to promise not to lie, i.e. to tell no deliberate falsehoods. This is of course the intent behind the third phrase 'nothing but the truth' which is the only justifiable phrase in the oath.
Some may object, saying the most we can ask is for everyone to speak 'their own truth' but that is a very dangerous road to walk. It blurs the necessary distinction between belief and truth. I started this by stating "If 'truth' is to mean anything at all, it can only mean 'that which is', in other words, reality, expressed in language." The minute we allow the concept of 'personal truth' we blow personal accountability out of the water. We can no more own our own truth than we can own our own sun.
In short: Truth anchors language to reality.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How to weigh a car using a tape measure and a tyre pressure gauge

By -
There are two pretty good ways to weigh a car: Drive it to the nearest public weighbridge and wait your turn. Look up the manual under General Specifications, ‘kerb weight’ But let's suppose the nearest public weighbridge is fifty miles away and you've lost the manual (and temporarily forgotten how to use public libraries and the Internet) and the burning urge to weigh your car just won't go away- what can you do about it? The good news is, you need hardly any equipment. All you need, for a reasonably accurate result is: a hand-held tyre pressure gauge which can be analogue or digital a retractable steel measuring tape a calculator, pencil and paper, or a good head for mental arithmetic The method Park the car on some clean, level concrete Observe that the car is held up by its four tyres (!) Measure the width of the tread of one tyre: e.g. 6 inches Measure the length of tread in contact with the ground: e.g. 7 inches Work out the area of tread touching the ground: e.g. 6 x
Read more

A Dangerous Species

By -
 Beware of the Financial Advisor. It hangs around in ex-pat haunts such as Doha's Champion's Bar, listens in to conversations for hints of affluence, and ingratiates itself with unsuspecting individuals who might be looking to invest some hard-earned money. It is likely to use a pseudonym, like Decent Bloke, Helpful Guy or John Hunt. But what it is really trying to do is scam you with some  dubious investment scheme   Having received its commission, it won't want to know you any more.
Read more

The need for pragmatic politics

By -
Personally, I see no convincing evidence for the existence of supernatural beings. But even supposing I am wrong and the firmament is positively teeming with spirits, ghosts, angels, demons, saints, archangels, deities of every flavour, even that would not be reason enough for our political life to concern itself with anything other than immediate secular pragmatism. Politics, like ethics, should not ask "How did we get here?" Apportioning credit or blame for the status quo is an exercise for armchair philosophers. Government should address two questions: "Who is suffering genuine hardship?" and "What can we do to help?" There is work enough in a programme based on these two questions to keep politicians busy for years. If in doubt as to the meaning of genuine hardship, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is a good starting point. As long as we have people struggling to find food, shelter and basic security, we should not even give ear-time to the complaints o
Read more