Can you alter truth?

[Grace]

In class, we have discussed a lot about the Party's falsification of history records. Some people were saying that by altering the records, the Party was altering truth. Do you agree that by changing the records of history, the Party is really changing history itself?

In my opinion, just because you alter everyone's perception of the truth, doesn't mean you change what truth itself is. I believe that truth is absolute; there is one truth, and no matter what may be commonly believed or accepted, it will always be the truth. Truth cannot be changed, and history cannot be either.

Here's a quote from chapter 8:

"And when memory failed and written records were falsified—when that happened, the claim of the Party to have improved the conditions of human life had got to be accepted, because there did not exist, and never again could exist, any standard against which it could be tested."

This doesn't speak directly towards the question, but I do think it's some food for thought on the matter.

[Eitan]

I agree with Grace. History is definite and absolute. An event either happened or it did not; there is no middle ground. 2+2 will always equal 4. Facts are unable to be changed. Even if everyone says that an event did not happen it does not affect that event, only people's perceptions of it. Therefore, even if everyone believes one thing, that one thing is not neccessarily true. Changing the historical records does not change historical facts.

[Ada]

I also agree with the idea that truth is absolute and cannot be changed. However, I believe that history is subjective and relative, instead of absolute. In History class, we had to read a paper that reminded me a lot of 1984 and what the Party had been doing to historical records. After the United States dropped the atomic bomb on Japan, it basically tried justify its actions by making up numbers of casualties that would have resulted if they hadn't dropped the bomb. They weren't necessarily changing historical records, but they were doing what the Party had done, which was fudging numbers or exaggerating events. Therefore, it's hard to say what we learn as history is actually true. I think that once somebody records history, it automatically becomes subjective, even if the person does not intentionally change it.

[Gabe]

I agree, history, as it is recorded by humans, is always somewhat biased, regardless of whether or not the bias was placed intentionally. I believe, however, that History is absolute. Similiar to truth, we cannot know whether or not we know the absolute history or the subjective, changed history, which is untrue.

[Randie]

Language and truth have an interesting connection in 1984. In the third part of the novel, O'Brien asks Winston how truth can be preserved. Winston replies that only through memory and written records can events remain absolute and true. However, O'Brien replies that the Party can burn and alter records, and brainwash the masses to change their memories through Doublespeak. An example of this regards the wars. O'Brien and the Party continually repeat, "Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia." This concept of Doublespeak--being aware of the truth but simultaneously rejecting it--is how the party controls its power. Therefore, both memory and written records can be altered. How, then, can truth, history, and language be absolute? If an event actually occurred, but no one remembers it or refuses to believe it, is it still the truth? And if it is, what good is it now?

[Ian]

There is a difference between truth and history. Truth is absolute. As Eitan has said: "An event either happened or it did not; there is no middle ground." History is simply a written interpretation of truth. Inevitably, it will contain an author's bias. All history has some sort of bias, which is why in order to try to derive what is truth, one must expose themselves to as many as possible. However, what the Party eliminated all other history so that there is no other interpretation of the truth except their own. In doing so, they they are able to control what the people understand about their circumstances and prevent them from thinking that anything else can exist.

[Rachel]

Whenever I think of rewriting history, I think of the quote, "History is written by the winners." This quote speaks truth to me as I believe many government attempt to shield their people from the horrors of the past so as to better their future. It is true, even if the Party changes the past, the absolute truth cannot be altered. Yet, if no one is aware of the absolute, it does not exist in the human mind. And therefore, it is irrelevant to mankind. While this may be terrifying for some people, we must realize that if we erase all records of history, no one will remember the truth anymore. Absolute truth begins to become relative.

[David]

To me, 1984 is the novel form of Orwell's essay. Almost every statement in the article mirrored the Party and its crimes in the book. I think that Orwell is conveying how language can be abused to conceal truth. I strongly believe that humans have no capability of altering or even grasping absolute truth. The only thing that the Party can do is to cover the world with lies and false truths by altering and destroying language. Unfortunately, such acts are so effective in dominating society and consuming individuality.