Truth, in the eyes of a painter named Francois
Lemoyne, was not George Washington admitting that he chopped down the apple
tree. In the eyes of Francois Lemoyne,
truth was a startlingly white and slightly chubby woman with no clothes
on. Mind you, truth was not the nasty, all-sprawled-out
type of naked girl. Truth was the coy
and shrinking away sort of naked.
I once wrote in a poem that “truth is finicky.” I meant, of course, that truth may at times
be a moving target. I must tell you,
that barely begins to define what I discovered when I drifted over to Wikipedia
to read about truth. Apparently, way
back when humans were still roasting squirrels for dinner on sharpened sticks,
the ever-present philosophers adopted truth as a favored subject of study and
argument.
As a side note, I would like to mention that philosophers
have cleverly devised a way to make a living at universities by not agreeing
about anything. They call this “reasoned
debate.” I am not certain of the exact manner in which
they connected a paycheck to argument, but I am very proud of them for doing so
nonetheless.
I wish I had done that.
Over the years, philosophers have made a substantial
mess out of truth. In order to track
their disorder, philosophers have created an array of truth “theories” to which
various camps subscribe. Some of the
theories are termed “Substantive theories.”
Socrates, the famous Greek philosopher, espoused to subordinate theory
now called “Correspondence” theory. In
this theory, you can assign truth to real stuff, as example a garden rake. To illustrate, I might hold forth a rake and
proffer the statement: “In truth, this is a garden rake.” If I am actually holding a garden rake as I
make the pronouncement—this is then a knowable truth and you may put me to work
in your corn patch. If, contrarily, I am
holding a banana and I espouse that it is a rake, you may check to see if my
eyes are dilated and then send me a paycheck in care the Philosophy Department
at Hegman University.
More recent theories about truth often fit into the
“Minimalist,” sometimes called “Deflationary,” category. These theories are often difficult to
decipher. A great deal of study may be
required. As I read through the
information provided on Wikipedia relative to deflationary reasoning on truth,
I rather got the impression that truth was meaningless in this realm of
perception. I stopped reading about
truth when I reached the following sentence written under the “Redundancy”
theory:
…making
the assertion that “Snow is white is true” is equivalent to asserting that
“snow is white.”
That stopped me cold in my tracks. I thought and thought and thought. The statement made so much sense it did not
make any sense at all. I decided right
then and there that I need a new way to make a living.
One other thing:
I actually think truth is cute enough and I would like to sleep with her.
--Mitchell
Hegman