[current thought]
[thoughts index]

August 24, 2000

Perception can be a very funny thing. Ever hear the expression "there are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth?"

Well, what if that third side didn't really exist?

Assuming the existence of an absolute truth is the basis for many things in the world. The justice system, for example, is in theory based on the idea that something really only happened one way. But when it comes right down to a court case, usually the outcome is decided less by what "really" happened than by which lawyer was most convincing. Truth often falls by the wayside.

This would be a real shame - assuming, of course, that truth really does exist. But how can we be sure? Every human being sees the world through a unique set of eyes that we call perception. This perception is limited by selectivity and coloured by an entire history of preconceived notions. It would be impossible to find a single person capable of being entirely objective about everything.

To those who believe in G-d or in a higher power, the notion of truth is based on His (or Her) ultimate objectivity. G-d observes from a distance, sees all, knows all, and is the ultimate dispenser of justice. The question of G-d however is a matter of faith more than anything else. Of course, there is no consensus or "truth" about whether G-d exists, and, if so, about the nature of G-d. People of different faiths have different beliefs on the subject, each being coloured by the individual perceptions of those people. For example, some Christians believe that anyone who isn't a Christian is not "saved" and will therefore go to hell. Other religions may believe that Christianity is "wrong" and G-d will only favour, say, Jews or Muslims or whoever. Yet other people are atheist, believing in no higher power at all. How does this complete lack of consensus lead to any sort of absolute truth?

Leaving religion aside, we have a serious problem defining objective truth. It then stands to reason that perhaps it does not exist at all. Maybe what we believe to be truth is simply a consensus between the perceptions of a majority.

For example, how do we know the sky is really blue? Everyone says it's blue. Of course, the consensus of science is that it is not really blue at all, since the atmosphere is colourless. The blue comes from a reflection off the water - something I never quite understood myself since the water is supposedly blue because of reflections from the sky. Furthermore, how do we know that the colour we define as "blue" is really blue? Maybe everyone sees blue differently and we'd never know that because we cannot see through each others' eyes? Back to scientific conventions again, we don't actually see a colour but the absence of that colour - so what we're seeing is every colour except blue!

Science is nothing more than a series of conventions and accepted theories. A scientist who comes up with a theory becomes famous if the scientific community accepts his theory. Then, the theory stands until another scientist disproves it. For example, at one time it was believed that a substance caused phlogiston was present in any substance that combusts. This was known as the phlogiston theory, developed by Georg Stahl. When it was discovered that a substance actually gains mass when it burns, scientists claimed that phlogiston has negative mass. Which of course, is ridiculous to us today, but it took a scientist named Lavoisier, in the late eighteenth century, to disprove this theory and replace it with the modern one, which states that when a substance burns, it chemically reacts with oxygen. We accept this definition today, but how long until another scientist comes along and disproves it?

Advertising is just another way of trying to convince the public to see one version of facts over another. Direct competitors each claim that their product is superior. Obviously, they can't both be right. Everything in advertising is based on exaggeration, and depending on how cleverly the facts are twisted, an ad can be effective or ineffective. It doesn't matter whether Coke is truly better than Pepsi, only if the public can be convinced that this is so.

We've all heard that history is written by the winning side. Two different cultural, ethnic, national or religious groups can have vastly different interpretations of the so-called facts. Look at Israel and the Palestinians, for example. Both sides claim to be the "good guys". Both sides claim a historical right to Jerusalem. Both sides claim that the other side committed the lion's share of the wrongs. Of course, after eleven years of Jewish education, my perception is skewed to favour Israel's side, but at least I recognize that. If there are such conflicting accounts floating around today, about events less than fifty years old, how much trust could we possibly put into ancient historical writings?

Whenever I argue with my mother, she is quick to point out that I can't possibly be right, that my perception of reality is skewed. Which, of course, it is, but so is hers. In an argument, all parties are convinced they are right. Why else would they be arguing? If everyone in the world would concede that their point of view is not necessarily right or wrong, but only perception, so many conflicts could be avoided. It is human nature to each believe that our perception is reality, and much of our lives are spent trying to convince others that it is so. In fact, no two people will completely agree on every issue, no matter how much they have in common. There will always be conflict because everyone will always have different opinions. If everyone thought the same way, the world would be an extremely boring place.

How do we know that our life isn't a dream and our dreams aren't real life? How do we know that we're really ourselves? Maybe we just perceive this to be so? Maybe the whole world as I know it is nothing more than a figment of my imagination?

So, then, what is truth? Is it absolute? Of course not. Truth according to any person is nothing more than perception. How could we possibly know what is truth? A generally accepted perception is a convention, and our definition of truth is nothing more than a series of conventions. So the next time someone says to you, "hey, that's not true!" just smile slightly and reply, "There is no truth, but that's my perception!"