Truth Matters More Than Your Feelings

Truth as the Goal and Purpose of Intellectual Discourse

Photo by Norbert Braun on Unsplash

A quick search will show you that there are hours upon hours of “intellectual” content on the internet. However, you don’t have to watch for long to see that most of it is far from genuine. Many discussions are discussions in name only.

Such discussions prioritize witty zingers, calling out mistakes, and tearing down the other person. Such discussions have more in common with gladiatorial contests than intellectual inquiry. Audience members, rather than watching to learn, watch to see if their side will win.

Even more sincere attempts at engaging in intellectual debate fall short. While they do a better job than their counterparts, they consist of people talking past each other, not listening to each other, or simply sharing what they have heard but do not understand. These types of discussions trade outright conflict for more subtle forms.

Part of the problem is the nature of modern media in which these discussions are broadcast. 24-hour cable news shows and social media force us to focus on speed and sound bites driven by a need for clicks and views. However, the root of the problem runs deeper. All these discussions, despite the use of tools like logic and evidence in some cases, fall short of true intellectual discussion for one reason — their objective is not truth.

In this article, we will look at the very important role that truth plays in making intellectual discussions what they are — intellectual. We will first consider attempts to define truth and see common features of truth. Then, we will look at how truth serves as the guiding light for intellectual discussions.

What is Truth?

The nature of truth is one of the central questions of philosophy. This means that it is not an easy subject and there are many competing theories about it.

The definition of truth that most of us are most familiar with is called the correspondence theory of truth. The theory says that something is true if it matches (corresponds) how things really are. For example, it is true that Charles III is the king of England if we can go out into the world and see he indeed does have the title of the king of England (e.g. based on evidence such as his mother was the previous queen of England, his face is on various currencies, he lives in Buckingham Palace, etc.). By contrast, it is not true that I am the king of England because in reality I do not have such a title — I am not even British!

The correspondence theory, of course, has its detractors. The coherence theory of truth defines truth as being part of a coherent system. Under this view, Charles III is the king of England not because of a fact of reality but because there are other claims which all fit together. For example, statements such as ‘England is a country with a monarchy’, ‘England puts the face of the monarch on their currency’, and ‘we have all been told Charles III is the king of England’ combined make it the claim ‘Charles III is the king of England’ true. Under this view, it is not an individual statement that can be judged as true or false. Instead, we must consider all claims together as a system to determine if the system (and thus each statement within it) is true.

Another alternative to the correspondence theory of truth is the pragmatic theory. The pragmatic theory says that something is true if it works. The view then focuses on the value of truth rather than a grand metaphysical theory. The pragmatic theory argues that, after a long inquiry into a question, the answer can be called true. In the future, if we discover new evidence, the truth (i.e. the answer) will change. Thus, this definition of truth is often closely associated with scientific inquiry in that we are constantly getting closer and closer to ‘real’ truth as we discover more about the world.

For our purposes here, what is important is not which of these, or any other theory, of truth is correct. Rather, it is important that truth, however it is defined, is considered the objective standard by which claims are judged. For the sake of simplicity, we can then define truth as something that our beliefs are trying to match. My beliefs are true if they are the same as true statements.

With this working definition of truth, we can now turn to the more pressing questions: why should the aim of intellectual discourse be truth?

Why is Truth Important?

The reason for seeking truth in intellectual discourse is built on the fact that there should be a purpose for anything that we do. Why go to school? Why get married? Why get a job and earn a living? Answers to all these questions show that we do things for a reason. We go to school because we think it will help us get a job. We get a job because we think it will help us have a more enjoyable life than being poor.

In philosophy, this view of purpose as a reason for action goes back as far as Aristotle who included it among his four causes of all things. Aristotle called it the final cause, and it says that it is what makes something the kind of thing that it is. For example, a statue of Aristotle is a statue of Aristotle because the sculptor’s aim was to make it look like him.

Applied to public discourse, a discussion is an intellectual discussion because it has as its aim truth — nothing else. Interestingly, Aristotle says that things without a final cause (i.e. with no purpose) are coincidence. In intellectual discourse, we definitely do not think what we are doing is simply a series of coincidences with random people we just happen to be in the same room as.

The difference between news and propaganda is helpful here. The difference between news and propaganda is often defined as the purpose in sharing the information. The news is meant to inform people about events happening in the world around them. Propaganda on the other hand aims to manipulate people by presenting only certain events or presenting events in such a way as to get people to react in a certain way. For example, the news will tell you that Tesla stock has dropped ten points, while propaganda will say that Tesla stock dropped ten points because of how stupid Elon Musk is.

We can then distinguish between intellectual discussions and various other kinds of discussions based on their purpose. Intellectual discussions do not have as their aim victory, entertainment, or even civility. While all these things are good, even desirable, they are not the aim of the discussion.

Take civility for example. A discussion that aims for civility rather than truth would be along the lines of a polite HR meeting. The topic of the meeting is a controversial new company policy about changes to employee health insurance. However, while the participants are allowed to voice their concerns, management has no intention of addressing them. The meeting simply serves as a release valve in the hope of avoiding conflict in the future.

Conclusion

What I hope has been made clear here is that without truth all discourse fails to be of the highest order: intellectual. Even when our meaning is clear, sufficient reasons are given, and we have checked our assumptions at the door, without the goal of seeking truth our discussions will be problematic. Think of it this way, if truth is not our goal, then something will take its place and anything other than truth will lead to discourse that is self-serving, manipulative, or destructive in nature.

Thus, having truth as our goal in discourse is not simply a matter of intellectual virtue but ethical virtue as well. When we divert from truth, we harm our fellow human beings. Simone Weil, a famous French philosopher, equated goodness with truth saying:

We must ascertain what is the criterion of goodness. It can only be truth and justice; and, then, the public interest. (Simone Weil, On the Abolition of All Political Parties, 2014)

Weil was writing at a time when fascism was on the rise, and she witnessed first-hand the destruction and death of World War 2 that resulted. She felt that political parties had abandoned truth and sought only to gain power.

Her experience is a perfect example of both the intellectual and moral issues at stake. When truth is no longer the purpose, argument decays. When arguments decay, so too does society.