Ours is a peculiar era in America where a large number of people deny that truth exists as an objective universal non optional reality. Why? It may be that they reject universal principles because it “frees" them to do as they please without concern for others or for the consequences of their actions. Or it is simply an honest assessment of the limits of their learning.
I recall two authors, Robert Sokolowski and Clark E. Moustakas.* Robert Sokolowski, a phenomenologist, describes two paths to truth: correctness and disclosure. Clark Moustakas, a therapist, observes how truth can be distinct from honesty.
Sokolowski approaches truth as a fundamental activity he calls “evidencing.” He uses that term as a verb, an activity, an achievement of which all people are capable. The world around us is given to us and we, according to our human nature, are capable of discerning the truth of the matter, whether it is a person, object or state of affairs. It's a daily activity.
Examples of the truth of correctness are Galileo correcting the commonly held erroneous view that all heavenly bodies revolve around the Earth. From common observation this view was cemented into the minds of millions for hundreds of years. But Galileo, with the help of his invention, the telescope, observed moons revolving around Jupiter. This contradicted the common view. He wasn't the only one who proposed a heliocentric view of the solar system, and for claiming that observed and corrected truth he paid a high price.
Another example of the correctness of truth concerns the best way to handle pandemics. Is it best to lock down whole populations, billions of people, in an effort to stem the growth of a fatal virus and thus save lives? Or is it better to apply statistical analysis and allow the virus to be resisted naturally within the population and eventually overcome by the sheer numbers of people? Evidence is coming in that lockdowns do far more harm than good. Epidemiology, the cornerstone of public health, has known this statistical principle for decades. In hindsight it is felt that, because of politicians' fear and their desire to exercise power over their constituents, scientifically proven arguments were ignored. Continuing studies will correct the truth about the matter.
A third example of the truth of both correctness and disclosure is about gender. The recently confirmed candidate to the U. S. Supreme Court, Ketanji Brown Jackson, when asked point blank by Senator Blackburn of Tennessee what a woman is, could not answer. She ignored disclosed truth. A doctorate in biology is not required to state that a woman is someone who has two X chromosomes. A woman is a person who has a uterus and a preponderance of estrogen over testosterone. These biologically and anatomically proven facts, these universal truths, escaped her.
Those are examples of the truth of correctness. Without acknowledgement and dependence on this classification of truth man could never land on the moon or Mars. We could not develop reliable medical procedures or psychological principles. Now about the truth of disclosure.
As I said, the world is given to me; states of affairs present themselves to me. I sense when I am in the presence of an intelligible object; it is displayed to me, it is manifested. In its manifestation I actively participate in the unfolding the truth of a particular object or state of affairs. Disclosure is a universal quality all people possess. Each one of us through an innate characteristic founded in the essence of our being (often referred to as the transcendental ego). The ego is an active agent of truth. Each may say "I know the truth" because the truth of any situation discloses itself. Such disclosure is an active achievement of one's own consciousness. The task then becomes interpreting the truth. We do this through language. Language allows truth disclosing itself to make itself meaningful. Disclosure and interpretation are innate faculties that are not spread across the population equally. Some are better at it than others. But even a fool can criticize a genius.
I possess aspects of truth only in so far as I have taken time to study people, objects, and states of affairs around me, taken time to affirm my own judgment, taken time to acquire language sufficient to authentically render the truth in evidence. Language allows me to adequately test truth claims, my own and others', in order to verify those claims. In this way I bring about truth.
Let's move on. Clark Moustakas makes a startling distinction when he says truth and honesty are not the same thing. From his view, truth is the enduring authenticity of one's inmost being, whereas honesty is a momentary reaction that may not necessarily be rooted only in the moment, not in the enduring essence of one’s being. Truth takes into account not just how I feel at any given moment, angry, sad, tired, joyful, irritated, but it encompasses the larger context of others, their needs, their views. Honesty has a here-now value; truth presents a time-tested enduring value.
Thus it is possible for honesty and truth to come into conflict with one another. I may be angry with someone I love and blurt out cutting words I instantly regret. The words may well have been an honest expression of my state of mind, but they wounded my friend unnecessarily. Our relationship is compromised. Now I must take steps to repair the damage I inflicted. Moustakas even goes so far as to say that honesty is essentially a lie when it springs only from what is momentary but not consistent with the deeper self of the person.
I end on this note. Learn to affirm your best judgment as it is informed by truth. Regard your maturing judgment as perhaps your most highly valued capability. The truth will keep you intact, even if it means going against the flow.
_____
*Sokolowski, R. Introduction to Phenomenology, 2002. Cambridge University Press.Moustakas, C. E. Loneliness and Love. 1972. Prentice Hall, Inc.