For Truth Or Glory?

Truth is a product of subjective perception. We define “truth” by what we perceive as being accurate and real. However, a person’s perception – the conclusions and the process through which those conclusions are reached – is unique from person to person. Our culture, upbringing, heritage, and personality all affect how we perceive things and what we consider true or false, good or evil, just or unjust. I agree with the Sophists’ notion that truth is relative; what one person considers an absolute truth may be a misconception in the eyes of another. I do not believe there to be any universal truths. Even the mortality of all living beings is subject to perception: whereas the death of a living being is the end of a life to some, to others it is only a phase in a larger cycle. One man mourns, another celebrates. It is all relative. Perhaps there is no ultimate truth to any given issue, but instead many subjective truths, each equally accurate and relevant to their beholder.

I would like to think that when I argue for something I believe in, I try to be objective, to maintain an open mind and a willingness to remodel some of my views, if warranted. Admittedly, I sometimes lose my cool exterior, and my male ego rears its forceful head. I agree with Socrates that the purpose of an argument should be to achieve clarity and enlightenment, not personal gain. While it is true that some individuals will try to win an argument just for the sake of winning, I do not believe that winning for winning’s sake is a justifiable purpose for an argument.

I think that a successful argument can clarify the details of an issue or its possible solutions, but that those clarifications are entirely subjective. In other words, each participant in an argument, whether for or against an issue, will determine its underlying “truths” based on their own cultural and ideological backgrounds. For example, I recently had an exchange of opinions with my wife on the subject of Senator Hillary Clinton and her presidential campaign. My wife feels that Senator Clinton has undermined her morals and her political credibility by standing by her husband’s side as he committed perjury (oh, wait, he was acquitted) in the aftermath of his sex scandal during his second presidential term. Being American and having grown up under the cultural blanket of high ideals and moral expectations, she finds it distasteful to consider Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate based solely on her morals, or lack thereof. As for me, your standard issue decadent European, I grew up in an atmosphere which was more tolerant of adulterous mishaps, as long as the political views and the policies being drawn were found effective and agreeable. In the end, I found our argument an interesting one, but naturally there was no ultimate truth or all-encompassing solution to our differing views. Just as well; the world is much more interesting that way.