Truth is Subjectivity
The Danish philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard, (The Melancholy Dane) said "truth is subjectivity." While that particular statement, when I first read it, raised my hackles a little, I have pondered it long and finally have come to believe it.
At the same time, I believe in absolute truth. How is it possible to reconcile the two concepts, which at first glance seem mutually exclusive?
I am going to go back to one of my favorite arguments, concerning the relative value of fiction versus non-fiction. As I have argued before, fiction is one hundred percent true, while non fiction is one hundred percent false, or maybe ninety five percent false. This is why. When I write fiction, the very definition of the word indicates that everything I say comes from my thoughts. It is one hundred percent true that the book I have written and advertised as my thoughts, because I called it 'fiction,' is truly my thoughts. (unless I have plagerized, which I have not)
On the other hand, someone that has written non-fiction has lied. All of us have read books purporting to be non fiction that come to completely opposite conclusions than other books written on the same subject. We have read supposedly historical events from such different standpoints that we cannot even tell for sure both describe the same happening. Why?
Because each writer interprets the data they are conveying, and every person's depiction of data is different. As readers, we must sort through these accounts and decide what we choose to believe.
The writers of non fiction claim to be writing truth, but they are always only writing their interpretation of truth. Therefore they completely and absolutely misrepresent themselves. The truth we can see is our own interpretation, and therefore completely subjective. That doesn't mean that events didn't absolutely occur. They did, and the more serious accounts of a given event we read, the closer we will come to finding out the absolute truth. Still, if you want perfect accuracy in what you read, I recommend fiction...
At the same time, I believe in absolute truth. How is it possible to reconcile the two concepts, which at first glance seem mutually exclusive?
I am going to go back to one of my favorite arguments, concerning the relative value of fiction versus non-fiction. As I have argued before, fiction is one hundred percent true, while non fiction is one hundred percent false, or maybe ninety five percent false. This is why. When I write fiction, the very definition of the word indicates that everything I say comes from my thoughts. It is one hundred percent true that the book I have written and advertised as my thoughts, because I called it 'fiction,' is truly my thoughts. (unless I have plagerized, which I have not)
On the other hand, someone that has written non-fiction has lied. All of us have read books purporting to be non fiction that come to completely opposite conclusions than other books written on the same subject. We have read supposedly historical events from such different standpoints that we cannot even tell for sure both describe the same happening. Why?
Because each writer interprets the data they are conveying, and every person's depiction of data is different. As readers, we must sort through these accounts and decide what we choose to believe.
The writers of non fiction claim to be writing truth, but they are always only writing their interpretation of truth. Therefore they completely and absolutely misrepresent themselves. The truth we can see is our own interpretation, and therefore completely subjective. That doesn't mean that events didn't absolutely occur. They did, and the more serious accounts of a given event we read, the closer we will come to finding out the absolute truth. Still, if you want perfect accuracy in what you read, I recommend fiction...
No comments have been added yet.
