Sunday, October 26, 2008

What we need: Commitment to Truth; Faith; Trust

We (our nation and our world) need three things, which are intertwined:

Commitment to the Truth:
Truth has a very high value; we should recognize this fact. Truth multiplies the power of groups, because individuals can rely on the information they receive from others without the inefficiency of questioning the motives of others. With truthful communications, groups can operate as a single organism, collecting and processing information no single individual could collect and process alone.

Truth is more than facts, and more than a collection of facts. Our presidential campaigns bombard us with huge numbers of facts in attempts to convince us to vote for their candidates. They purport to tell us the Truth, but they carefully lead us away from facts that might weaken their candidates' positions. We should not stand for this. The time before elections should be a nationwide discussion about what is True, with every side willing to concede points (where warranted) to others in a quest to determine where we are and where we should go.

This discussion necessarily requires that we accept that people can honestly disagree about important issues. In fact, Truth is subjective. What I feel is True may not be what you feel is True. What I feel is True today may not be what I felt was True yesterday, or tomorrow. But what is important is that when we interact with other people, we communicate Truthfully about what we know and what we feel. And the fact that our own knowledge and feelings change over time should help us understand that someone else's differing perception of Truth doesn't make them evil, or even a bad person; they're just different. If we can convince them that our perception of Truth is superior to their perception, great. But if they manage to convince us, we need to admit it. In few cases will either perception be either fully correct or fully incorrect; the full Truth lies outside either perception, waiting to be more fully uncovered.

The object is not to define a static, objective Truth that all can agree on; the important thing is that all parties be committed to the search, and honest in communicating what they find.


The second thing we need is Faith. We need Faith that Truth is our friend. Too often we are afraid to tell the Truth, or know the Truth, or seek the Truth, for fear of the consequences. Faith is the confidence that we'll be OK without depending on the status quo. My wife, a statistician, is fond of saying the most important factor in predicting whether you'll be alive tomorrow is whether you're alive today. The reason you're alive today is that, overall, the things that led you to where you are now have kept you alive. You have a lifelong record of survival. There are any number of things in your past that could have led to your demise, but you have avoided them all. That's a high recommendation for keeping on doing what you're doing.

This thing about committing yourself to Truth is pretty threatening. You got to where you are based on a set of assumptions (which may have change quite a bit through the years) about what is important, what is True, what's, what's wrong, what's OK, and what's not OK. And when these assumptions are challenged, you have a choice: you can either be open to change, or you can defend them. It's often safer to defend them. Change is a threat to your survival, because what you perceive before you change has been successful in keeping you alive. That's why Faith is important. You have to have Faith in the Truth in order to seek Truth. And you can't be committed to Truth without seeking it.

Trust is the third component to this triad. We need to trust others. If we're confident others are committed to Truth, trusting them is simple. And that's another reason for being committed to Truth ourselves; others need to be able to trust US.

Trusting doesn't require us to accept as fact everything anyone else tells us. If someone tells me that Vitamin C can prevent cancer, I, frankly, wouldn't believe it. But I should be able to trust that the other person believes that it does. And I don't necessarily need to get into a discussion with that person about whether it's true; that discussion may not be worth my time. But I, and we as a society, shouldn't condone people saying that Vitamin C prevents cancer if they don't actually believe it themselves. But I think we tolerate this time type of misrepresentation all the time, in others, and in ourselves. And we shouldn't.

When I criticize toleration of behavior, I want to be clear about the danger of branding people as 'bad'. I believe we're all a mixture of admirable ("good") and inadmirable ("bad") qualities, and the distribution of these qualities in us change with time. The fact that I lied once, or perhaps lied a lot, doesn't make me an incorrigible liar from that point on. A person who is untrustworthy at one time, or about one thing, isn't necessarily untrustworthy about everything, or even that one thing all the time. Who among us hasn't learned from a mistake?

We shouldn't tolerate dishonesty, but we need to be willing to risk loss by sometimes erring on the side of trusting too much, rather than playing it safe and never trusting anyone who has let us (or others) down in the past. This is another example of how Faith is important in our lives.

So there you have it: We need a commitment to Truth, because that allows groups to function efficiently and cooperatively. We need Faith that this commitment to Truth will benefit us all in the end. And we need Trust to take advantage of the benefits Truth provides.

So ends my first post on my Philosophy.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

But how do you weed out people who are not willing to actually participate in your ideal discussions based on their true beliefs. ie, those who rather wish to act as mercenaries or spoilers.

As Scotty says: "Fool me once..."

But I think that there are a lot of these people and they can do a lot of damage before you exclude their citizenship. And then you want to have a process to let them back into the discussion...

Ned said...

I think your questions are centered on my statements about trust. I said that "we need to trust others". It would have been better to say that we need to build communities of trust, and act in trustworthy ways when interacting within those communities, and when working outside those communities. We should strive to err on the side of trusting too much, rather than too little.

How does one weed out untrustworthy people? I weed them out the same way everyone weeds people out every day. If they act as mercenaries or spoilers (they have no commitment to the truth), it will be evident, or not evident. If it's evident, I can choose to distance myself from them. If it's not evident, I may get burned. But are the burns likely to be fatal? If I focus on the potential downside, I lose much of the potential upside. I think Faith (the confidence that I can survive betrayals) is an important part of this. Also, if I am successful in being part of a group that DOES have a commitment to truth, I (with the help of my group) am more likely to detect the false front, and more likely to survive the betrayal if it comes.


Regarding the process to let people back in the discussion: you might call it mercy or forgiveness. It doesn't have to be a formula; we're not writing a computer program or an algorithm for a discussion board. I'm talking about how to live life.

My thoughts are really about how I'd like to run my own life. I want to behave in ways in which I would fit into (or even be the basis for) these types of communities.