Episode Twelve - Truth, delusion & usefulness

In this episode I discuss some of the meanings of the term, ‘truth,’ and explore the ways in which different concepts of truth affect how we see the world and how we relate to each other. I go on to suggest that it may be more beneficial to human wellbeing to think in terms of what is ‘useful’ rather than what is ‘true.’ This talk may seem more abstract and theoretical than many of the others, but I hope that it will clarify some of the thinking around notions of truth and be helpful in establishing your own view of what is true and useful.

Transcript

In one of the sutras [the Canki sutra in the Majjhima Nikaya] the Buddha is asked about truth – how we discover, verify and preserve truth – particularly in relation to the teachings of religious and other leaders. The Buddha makes use of a great many examples and detailed arguments to make his case. Surprisingly, perhaps, he begins by arguing against the notion that what we believe to be true renders all other views to be false: ‘it is not proper for a wise man…to come to the definite conclusion: “Only this is true, anything else is wrong.”’ [Bodhi 98] At the outset the Buddha argues against dogmatism, absolutism and arrogance. Truth is never absolute it is always conditional.

The Buddha goes on to advise how we should evaluate the truth claims made by an individual – particularly a fellow monk or teacher. This is to be done, he says, by investigating whether the monk or teacher’s claims are grounded in greed, hatred or delusion. If so, we should scrutinise very carefully such claims and only accept them if we consider them not to be influenced by greed, hatred or delusion. Truth is to be ascertained by careful and persistent scrutiny of what is claimed by a person, in order to establish whether the claim is tarnished by greed, hatred or delusion – if this is found to be the case, then such claims should be rejected. This approach implies a direct correlation between the state of mind or attitude of a person and their ability to make truth-claims. To put it another way: statements of truth are not likely to be the product of greed, hatred or delusion; they are more likely to arise from a disposition of generosity, kindness and clear unbiased awareness. 

In his book, What the Buddha Taught, Walpola Rahula, makes the point that ‘according to Buddhism, the Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent.’ [Rahula: 39] In other words truth is always conditional and open to revision as conditions change. Rahula goes on to define Truth as things seen as they are ‘without illusion or ignorance.’ To realise what is true, is to see things as they are (dharma) – to be aware of what is actually the case. This is a clear statement, grounded in what we know of the Buddha’s view, recorded in the Pali texts. However, it begs the question: how can we know how things actually are? This brings us back to the Buddha’s advice to ascertain by careful scrutiny whether a particular truth claim is ‘tarnished by greed, hatred or delusion.’ In other words, we have to examine the conditions within which a claim is made, in order to ascertain whether it is likely to represent a true and accurate account of how things are. The word, ‘delusion’ in this context is a translation of the Buddhist term, avijja/avidya. Avidya, is a compound of a, meaning ‘not’ and vidya which comes from the Sanskrit root, vid, meaning ‘to perceive, know or understand.’ Thus, avidya means to ‘not know’ – particularly, in Buddhism, to not know that all phenomena are conditional, interdependent and impermanent. It is this misconception or misunderstanding about the nature of things which gives rise to dukkha – that is, suffering, dissatisfaction, confusion and alienation.

The question of how we justify belief, and define truth, have been the subject of philosophical and religious thought since the beginnings of recorded history. Most western philosophers would agree with Aristotle's definition (in his Metaphysics): “To say of what is that it is not, or what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, or what is not that it is not, is true”. (O’Hear 1991) Aristotle makes it clear that truth and falsity are characteristics of statements or propositions about the world, not qualities of the world itself. This is a fundamentally important premise of most conceptions of truth or what we might call ‘justified true beliefs.’ 

When we make a statement, such as, ‘all hedgehogs have prickles,’ we are making a claim that this is a true statement. Within western philosophy there are at least four widely acknowledged theories of how we recognise, and validate, truth-claims.

Two of these theories are closely related, and we can consider them together – they are known as Correspondence Theory and Picture Theory. In both, true statements, but not false ones, 'correspond to,' or ‘picture,’ reality - or bits of it - called facts or states of affairs. For instance: imagine there is an apple on the table in front of you and you say to me: ‘There is an apple on the table in front of me.’ I consider this to be a true statement because I can see the apple on the table – I can point to it. The statement you have made can be said to correspond to, or picture, the apple on the table.  If you say, ‘there is no apple on the table,’ and I can see that there is an apple on the table, I have grounds for considering this to be a false statement, because it doesn’t correspond to, or picture, the apple on the table in front of you. 

But what if you say, ‘God exists.’ What does this statement correspond to, let alone picture? There would seem to be nothing you can point to that would verify this statement. And, even more problematic, what if you say, ‘God does not exist’. What does this statement correspond to, or picture? How can a statement be said to correspond to, or picture, an absent entity, something that I can’t point to? If I say, ‘There are no blue apples,’ to what does this statement correspond or picture? An absence? A hollow space out in the world? How can a negative statement be said to correspond to, or picture, a non-existing something?  

Another approach taken by philosophers is known as, Coherence Theory. The idea here is that true statements are statements that best fit into a particular system of beliefs – for instance a particular religion, philosophy, culture or worldview. Consistency is an important consideration - if a statement does not fit into the 'system' of beliefs or ideas it cannot be true. For instance, in contemporary society, grounded in a scientific belief system, if I say, ‘the earth is flat,’ or, more controversially, if I claim that the earth was made in seven days, most people would probably dismiss these statements as being untrue or false - not because they don’t correspond to anything out in the world, but because they don’t fit into, or go against, our scientific belief-system. Another example might be: if I am a committed Christian and you say to me that God does not exist, I will probably consider this to be a false statement – not because the statement doesn’t ‘correspond’ with something out in the world (how could it?) but because the absence of God does not fit into my Christian belief system. 

Of course, this theory of truth also poses significant questions. For instance, in a world where there are many belief systems competing for our attention, who is to determine or define the correct one? When I firmly believe in membership of the European Union, the statement that ‘we would be much better off if we leave the EU,’ would appear to me to me to be untrue - because it does not fit with my Eurocentric belief system. For someone who doesn’t subscribe to a Eurocentric belief system the statement may well be considered to be true. If I subscribe to a belief that there is a global conspiracy in which aliens have taken over the world by taking on the appearance of key world leaders, any statement that goes against, or doesn’t fit with, my set of beliefs will be considered to be false. The opposite applies if I don’t subscribe to this particular conspiracy-theory-grounded belief system.

One other problem associated with the coherence theory of truth is the question of how we can gain new knowledge, if knowledge always has to fit within the current belief system? If truth-claims have to fit within, say, the dominant belief system of a particular era, wouldn’t we still believe that the earth is flat?

The fourth of these theories of truth is known as Pragmatist Theory and is associated with the ideas of the twentieth century philosophers, C.S. Peirce, William James, John Dewey and Richard Rorty. Here the principal notion is that the truth of statements is determined by their practical applicability or usefulness. In Peirce's case (he was particularly interested in science) ‘truth consisted in what worked in the sense of being acceptable to scientists in the long run – “the opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate.”’ (O’Hear 1991) John Dewey suggests that valid truth-claims are those that are found to work towards the common good, or we might say, the relief of suffering. 

Pragmatists believe that the possibility of error can never be ruled out - even with regard to judgments about our sensory experience. Therefore, our ideas of what is true need always to be open to revision in the light of changing experiences, further investigation and new information. This idea of the relative, changing, evolving nature of truth is seen by many as undermining the notion of truth as something we can believe in or depend on. Once more, we have to recognise that there may be many different, even contradictory, truth-claims competing for validation or acceptance at any particular time. A pragmatist would probably argue that this is always the case in ‘real life’ and to pretend otherwise is unrealistic. Indeed, embracing the idea that there may be many varied or competing truth-claims relating to many situations and states of affairs in the world, is a good thing. To be open to, and tolerant of, varied truth-claims may enable us to understand each other better and to live together more effectively by reducing misunderstanding, distrust and conflict.  

Many pragmatist thinkers would argue that the categories of true and false are less important to the general good than the categories of useful or not useful, beneficial or unbeneficial. When you say to me, ‘there is an apple on the table,’ and there is an apple on the table, it enables me to notice the apple and maybe to pick it up and eat it. It is a useful statement. If you say, ‘there is an apple on the table,’ and there isn’t an apple on the table, it enables me to question your eyesight or your reasons for misleading me. This approach is more worthwhile, a pragmatist might say, than whether we assign your statements to the categories of true or false.

In some ways, this brings us back to the Buddha’s views on how we ascertain what is true – by careful scrutiny of statements or truth-claims. In this way we can determine on what basis we accept or reject a particular truth claim, including on the basis of whether it is ‘tarnished by greed, hatred or delusion.’ Given that the Buddha is always seeking for ways in which suffering can be recognised and alleviated, one could claim that he was a pragmatist. He considered ‘truth’ not as a philosophical abstraction, but rather as an evolving set of beliefs and methods that have practical value – as a means of identifying and healing the many kinds of suffering in the world.

I would like to add a final thought. Having a relativist view of truth does not mean that ‘anything goes’, or that we can’t distinguish between ‘fact’ and ‘fiction’. Facts are a particular category of knowledge – the product of provisional agreement arrived at by careful scrutiny, experimentation and rational argument. Facts are determined by collective agreements made by groups of people who have studied a particular field of enquiry. They stand for as long as they are not invalidated by further evidence, or revised in the light of further study, experiment and peer review. Even facts in the hard sciences are always open to disproof and revision through collective study and argument. Facts are determined by collective enquiry rather than individual opinion, however powerful that individual might be. The Buddha, who seems to have been a charismatic and powerful individual, urged those around him never to take his opinions as true or factual, just because he has uttered them, rather, he repeatedly urged everyone to scrutinise what he said and test his statements against their own experience. Only in this way can a truth-claim be shown to be useful and valid. A key method of scrutiny, advocated by the Buddha, is mindful meditation.

Thank you for listening and bye for now.

References

Bikkhu Bodhi, ed. & trans., In the Buddha’s Words. 2005. Massachusetts, Wisdom Publications.

O'Hear, A. 1991. What Philosophy Is: An Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy. Penguin. 

Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught. 1974. New York: Grove Press.