The truth and “the truth”

I always enjoyed this bit from The Simpsons with Phil Hartman playing Lionel Hutz, Real Estate Agent and how it played on the concept of truth.

Lionel Hutz: Marge, I had a lot of calls about you.  Customers love your no-pressure approach.

Marge: Well, like we say, “The right house for the right person.”

LH: Listen, it’s time I let you in on a little secret, Marge.  The right house is the house that’s for sale.  The right person is anyone.

M: But all I did was tell the truth.

LH: Of course you did!  But there’s the truth [shakes head ominously side-to-side] and the truth [nods head up and down with big smile].  Let me show you. [Shows pictures of houses]

M: It’s awfully small

LH: I’d say it’s awfully . . . cozy.

M: That’s dilapidated.

LH: Rustic!

M: That house is on fire.

LH: Motivated seller!

Here’s the dictionary.com definition of truth:

1 .  the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.

2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.

In egghead philosophical circles those definitions are referred to as the correspondence view of truth.  It is also the definition that five-year olds intuitively know.  And it is the real version.  The problem is that some highly intelligent people try to mangle the concept of truth to mean all sorts of other things.  Some people mock those who hold to the correspondence view as if we are ignorant or old-fashioned. 

But I’m quite confident that the correspondence view of truth will always be demonstrably accurate compared to other views.  Here’s why: If you want to convince me that your view of how truth works you’ll unwittingly use the correspondence view to do so.  You’ll try to tell me that your version of how truth works is what corresponds to reality, and you will prove my point every time. 

Truth matters, and those who try to distort the plain definitions of it usually have ulterior motives.  As noted in a highly recommend and  more detailed perspective by J.P. Moreland:

Postmodernism denies the correspondence theory, claiming that truth is simply a contingent creation of language which expresses customs, emotions, and values embedded in a community’s linguistic practices. For the postmodernist, if one claims to have the truth in the correspondence sense, this assertion is a power move that victimizes those judged not to have the truth.

But note how the Postmodern must go on to prove that his definition of truth corresponds to reality.

I completely agree with Moreland’s closing:

For some time I have been convinced that postmodernism is rooted in pervasive confusions, and I have tried to point out what some of these are. I am also convinced that postmodernism is an irresponsible, cowardly abrogation of the duties that constitute a disciple’s calling to be a Christian intellectual and teacher.

. . .

Faced with such opposition and the pressure it brings, postmodernism is a form of intellectual pacifism that, at the end of the day, recommends backgammon while the barbarians are at the gate. It is the easy, cowardly way out that removes the pressure to engage alternative conceptual schemes, to be different, to risk ridicule, to take a stand outside the gate. But it is precisely as disciples of Christ, even more, as officers in His army, that the pacifist way out is simply not an option. However comforting it may be, postmodernism is the cure that kills the patient, the military strategy that concedes defeat before the first shot is fired, the ideology that undermines its own claims to allegiance. And it is an immoral, coward’s way out that is not worthy of a movement born out of the martyrs’ blood.

Postmoderns will admire you for seeking the truth, but they will mock and revile you for claiming you found it.  They are proud that you can’t know things, though that is just a smokescreen for lying, cowardice or laziness.

Also see There is no truth except these five things, which highlights how postmoderns continually make truth claims while denying they do so.

2 Responses

  1. Wow! I found where I first posted on your blog, Neil! It’s in the last link you posted. Cool! Aug 17, 2007. ( It’s the little things that thrill me.)

    As to the point of the post, I couldn’t agree more. Discussions about truth often often bring out the relativsts with the same tired arguments. I don’t buy the notion that truth is some kind of intangible. Moreland is right. It is cowardly to take that stance. I don’t see how civilization can really thrive under such wishy-washiness. In fact, I think it has caused great harm to our culture to relax our desire for truth, to in fact insist it is metaphysical in nature. This has led to such lame and tissue-thin ideas of right vs wrong that have resulted in so much misery in our society.

Leave a Reply