Truth is True ... Isn't It?
by Eva Angeli

Truth is in the eye of the beholder. Or is it? Questions regarding the nature of truth have always been central to not only philosophers, but all men (and women, of course) who possess any desire for knowledge. For while truth itself is an elusive concept, it is also the underlying theme of all science -- which is the basis of knowledge -- and so the seeker of learning must first discover his own truth about the world; without a strong belief, the slippery nature of truth will only serve to confuse and mislead the student of life. A person who is lacking a basic understanding of truth can never fully grasp the fine distinction between appearance and reality, yet the ability to separate the two is essential to anyone interested in knowledge at a higher level, where appearances lead only to dead ends. Or do they? And who says appearance is not reality? At the heart of this matter is the conflict between truth as an absolute and the truth of the senses; while this may seem like a trivial matter (truth is true, isn't it?), it is anything but.

If there does indeed exist an absolute truth, as the Socratics claim, then all attempts to understand the universe are futile, since human senses can never adequately grasp a truth that is so far above everyday experience. On the other hand, the Epicurean view of truth is much more encouraging; after all, this explanation of truth as being of the senses offers the hope that individuals have the ability to create, and therefore understand, their own universe. The Epicureans, by advocating truth of the senses, basically claim that whatever appears to be something, really is, whereas followers of Socrates would discount that theory as rubbish and present their own conception of truth as absolute, a shining beacon of light that leaves no room for individual interpretation. In the end, there is just one question: is truth absolute or relative?

According to Plato, truth can exist only as an absolute. For him, as well as for all the other followers of Socrates, truth is attained through a series of steps that take the student through the different levels of reality, until finally the ultimate goal is reached; absolute truth resides in the world of ideas, but to get there, the person seeking wisdom must first recognize and conquer the lower stages. One of the best visualizations of this journey is found in Plato's parable of the cave, in which the prisoner of appearances is led (almost dragged) through the phases of recognition and learning. At first he is chained inside the cave, immobile, staring at a wall on which he sees mere shadows of objects passing between him and the fire situated at the back of the chamber. However, even these objects are just reflections of reality, being nothing more than statues of humans and animals, which are themselves merely the outward appearances of the world of ideals; therefore, the prisoner who looks at the shadows and believes them to be the truth is actually four times removed from the reality he seeks. When he is finally released from his bonds, he turns around and sees the objects that cast the shadows; this is the first step toward his goal, the point at which he begins to have doubts about the world he thought he knew. As the man moves out of the cave, dragging himself up the steep, treacherous path, he is actually forcing himself to abandon the preconceptions of the world which he gained, falsely, through his senses. Only when he is finally standing under the full glare of the sun does he fully realize that there is much more to his world than he previously thought; the bright, constant light of the sun serves to illuminate the true nature of things, a truth that the feeble, flickering light of the fire could only imitate, never duplicate.

The parable of the cave is a perfect allegory for Plato's teaching of truth as an absolute; in his interpretation, the shadows represent the belief of the uneducated, ignorant masses who will blindly accept whatever they hear. Through education and constant questioning of the accepted truisms it is possible to move beyond this shadow existence, eventually reaching the highest level of reason where the philosopher can finally see that truth exists as an absolute, an ideal that can never be attained in this world, for all tangible objects are mere reflections of this truth; here, away from the world of reason, each man puts his own interpretation over what he sees, thereby distorting its true nature and preventing him from ever realizing his own folly.

On the other hand, Lucretius and the Epicureans would argue that "all perceptions are true [sic]" (Lucretius xiii). This claim is the result of their philosophy, which is much more scientific than that of Plato; the Epicureans believed in a rational, materialistic explanation for all phenomena, including truth, based on the theory that all things are composed of tiny particles called atoms, and every event, sensation, and experience is the result of the interactions of these atoms. By basing his perception of the world fully on material objects, Lucretius gives precedence to human senses over the power of thought. In his theory, reasoning is important inasmuch as it allows man to understand his universe, but since this understanding consists of accepting and proclaiming the existence of the atoms and the physical reality of things, thought is then relegated to secondary importance behind touch, "for touch and nothing but touch (by all that men call holy!) is the essence of all our bodily sensations" (Lucretius 48). In this he differs greatly from Plato, who maintains that thought is the end-all and be-all of human characteristics; Lucretius, by basing reality on perception, gives each person the power to create his own truth, something about which Plato would probably have nightmares if he knew. However, this theory of truth as elusive and changing from person to person acts as a rather neat balance to the Socratic view of an unattainable, absolute truth; while Plato harshly criticizes all men who are incapable of seeing his truth, Lucretius offers them a chance at redemption by allowing them to freely believe in their own personal truths.

Since truth is of such an elusive nature, it is highly unlikely that this debate over its relativity can ever be satisfactorily settled. Nevertheless, both philosophies have valid arguments, and each also has its merits from the common man's point of view; while Plato's truth appeals to the seekers of knowledge and idealists who dream of a perfect world, Lucretius' definition of truth brings comfort to those who need to believe that what they can see and feel is a reliable representation of reality. Both of these explanations could be valid, yet the question remains, and will continue to haunt philosophers as long as man continues to philosophize: what is truth, and if someone accidentally stumbles on its actual nature, how will he recognize it when all he has learned is the art of doubt?

Bibliography 

Lucretius. On the Nature of the Universe. Tr. R. E. Latham. Introduction by John Godwin. Penguin Books, London: 1994.