Since we were children we have been taught that we must say the truth, also believing that whatever we are told, we have read or studied in books or enciclopedias is the truth. But what is truth anyway? Who gets to say if something is true or not? In George Orwell’s novel, 1984, the concept of truth and the manipulation of it is one of the most important topics presented, making the reader reflect on what might truth actually be. And believe me, as a reader I have been terribly puzzled.
First of all, I will try to work on the definition of truth. The Aristotelian explanation of truth is “To say something which is that it is or of something which is not that it is not”. Correspondence theory, one of the three main theories of truth, states that the truth of a proposition depends if it corresponds to a fact; it must first be proved by evidence or an individual’s valid opinion”. For example, the proposition “Snow is white” is true if and only if in fact snow is white; leading us to the Pragmatic Theory of Truth, “truth is an agreement with reality”. Some might say that objectivity is essential while others might believe that truth is based upon people’s own beliefs, feelings and interpretations, thus is subjective.
Our presentations on truth in class helped me define in some sort of way objective and subjective truth, and how people can manipulate what one has always believed was true. Because we were argued against so much when presenting our arguments, sometimes we found ourselves explaining that we know things because we read it somewhere, someone taught us that way, etc, making us inmediately question the origin of such theories or statements. So, it all ends up being quite a mess (well for me it is), what in our knowledge, and life, is true? Is anything objective truth?.
With these presentations one could definitely see how between ourselves we tried to manipulate someone’s concept of truth, mostly scientific ideas and theories, and almost ‘destroy’ a universally known truth such as the conservation of momentum or the fact that we have lungs.
The manipulation of truth is also very well portrayed in Orwell’s novel 1984, where the the State is continually changing facts in order to eliminate any evidence of rebellion against the party. Winston is a member of this ‘conspiracy’; he works in the Minister of Truth, editing old reports, articles, etc, so that they would make sense once the State ‘changed the Truth’ in some manner. They are not only manipulating truth, but also hiding it, for their own political benefit. Furthermore, in Part III of the novel, Winston truth is completely shifted when O’Brien makes him believe that 2+2=5. Everything that Winston, and also the people in the State, have been taught, is completely turned upside down in a matter of seconds. Not only with math, but also with language, truth is manipulated in 1984. Because of Newspeak, words are being also constantly removed from their vocabulary, thus leaving things with no true meaning, maybe making them not true at all. For example, the aim of the State is to develop such a simple language so that the imagination of revolution is impossible, thus revolution or anything like it won’t be true anymore.
This whole idea of truth has become an enigma to me since it is very difficult to find a definition for it. However, I do feel that objective and subjective truth are both equally valid, also leading me to believe that truth can be easily manipulated since it might depend on people’s on interpretation of things, and persuasion and manipulation, especially in our society are easily achieved.
I find it interesting to see that you believe that objective and subjective truth are both equally valid. I guess, in some way, I can agree with you on this point. Oftentimes, truth is about a leap of faith, trusting someone to tell the truth, even if there is no way to know whether they are honest or not. What's even more intriguing, however, is that different interpretations of things and persuasion is easily achieved today.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think we are more susceptible to this manipulation of truth during our lives compared to generations ago?
Hi Adrienne! Yes I actually do believe that both subjective and objective truth are valid. It was actually very hard for me to blog on the manipulation of truth and the presentations done in class. As I said it is actually all very confusing right now to me.
ReplyDeleteI believe that now we are more susceptible to the manipulation of truth because of the media. Nowadays media has a great influence over our lives, with the use of internet, music, movies, television and advertisement. Youngsters, children and also teenagers, are usually more susceptible too, since they believe what they see and are said; they are more easily manipulated.
So currently, people are more gullible? I completely agree with you that many believe what they see on T.V. and read on the internet, and this makes many people more susceptible. Especially youngsters, as they are so trusting. However, do you think we would be better off without the internet? The internet has opened up many minds to the entirety of the world- but some of the ideas that people have of the world could be wrong due to manipulation of the truth that people do. Do the pros of the internet outweigh the cons?
ReplyDeleteJust like you mentioned, the internet has opened up many minds and has allowed us understand and get to know the world and our society (to some extent). Maybe half of the things we see and read in the internet are true and real, so it does create a negative aspect there since we are not often well informed.
ReplyDeleteBut the Internet allows 'freedom of speech'; if someone wants to say something they can, no one can stop them. If it is his/her truth I think it is valid. This comes back to my point on subjective and objective truth, and how they are equally valid.
So yes, the pros might actually outweigh the cons of the Internet.