Everything We See Is In Perspective, Not The Truth

Explanations are a set of facts. The adjective good in the proposition, a prefix to the word explanations, adds a whole new dimension to the question. The reason being, good is an extremely ambiguous and relative term. It has different connotations and implications for individuals. Thus it is highly dependent on the individuals' beliefs. As stated in the Bhagvad Gita 'Man is made by his belief'. Thus whatever is in compliance with ones belief is good for them. This brings in the concepts of emotions and perception.

True means whatever is in compliance with reality. But the question that arises is individuals have varying realities.

Thus the judgments they make are also based on these varying realities. The Ways of Knowing like language and reason come into play here. 'Have' suggests that it is a necessity in all contexts and situations, thus having no room for exceptions. The questions that rise are- what is true? Does just validation make something true? Can anything be qualified or quantified as good? Who qualifies or quantifies them and how can it be universal? What are the factors that affect the truth? Do explanations only require the characteristic of being 'good' when their value is judged? Thus the objective of this essay is to address the above mentioned questions in relation to the knowledge question- 'do good explanations have to be true?', the Ways of Knowing- Reason, Language, Emotion and Perception in relation to the Areas of Knowledge- Religious Knowledge System and Ethics.

Get quality help now

WriterBelle

Verified writer

Proficient in: Philosophy

4.7 (657)

“ Really polite, and a great writer! Task done as described and better, responded to all my questions promptly too! ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Religion plays an important role in the lives of people because they look for something to put faith in, therefore it affects their emotions.

Language is used to propagate the beliefs and morals the particular religion stands for. Beliefs are perceived in different ways as per the convenience of the individual. To a certain extent, religion becomes a medium through which things are justified. Perception of a person is also channeled in a certain direction. It can thus be inferred that, religion has authority over the masses. It has the capability of manipulating and spreading information, keeping their vested interests in mind. Since most of these 'explanations' are propagated via speech, language plays an integral part in it. This preaching is done by various heads or representatives who have a face value.

Thus the person who is giving the explanation is also important. The example of Charles Mason is extremely significant here. Charles Mason was a cult leader. He included his devout followers to be his family. The followers started to perceive him as a messiah figure and considered whatever his commands to be the truth. He then manipulated this group to go commit murders for him. But the question that can be raised here is that, is the indoctrination and sense or emotion of loyalty or blind faith towards Mason so strong that it has the capability of overpowering reason. Masons' case finds a similarity in Honour Killing. Honour killing can be considered to be an act of elimination of opposition based on the insecurity of the leader of the cult or the sect. These people are killed because an explanation is propagated which is in tandem with the people want to hear and having the implication that it is a case of manipulation.

Even though this killing is supposedly done in the name of god, we do not know if it was actually god. The other more significant question rising here is who is god? Is he who created us? If yes then where is the proof? If the proof has to be derived from the religious texts, it can be countered by saying that humans wrote these texts, thus raising a question on the reliability. The umbrella question in front right now is the explanations that are given on the behalf of god can be logically claimed null and void because it is not confirmed whether we are a creation of god or the creators of god. Therefore good in this context becomes anything that is in compliance with the interests of the sect or the cult and its leader. Thus validation of the word good is the only criteria looked at from the perspective of religion.

Therefore as far as who decides what is 'good' and 'true' is concerned, it is qualified and quantified by the leader, therefore becoming their monopoly. These explanations seem reliable because our views have been indoctrinated by these views from the very start, therefore it is compliance with those views therefore it plays with our emotions. What becomes significant is therefore the intent of the explanation. In this case the intent is to acquire blind faith which makes the particular religion the only justification for everything and to execute the intended act. In context of the next example the statement- 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' is extremely significant. In the case of Copernicus, the Church shut him down because the discovery he made about the earth moving around the sun and not the opposite, was not in compliance with what they considered to be the truth.

Thus acceptance is what makes something true or false. This can be justified as a case of social conformity. But the question this situation raises is that, just because a certain group exercises their authority over the minority. That does not change the truth. The fact that they hide it from the world just delays the acceptance of it. Thus this also raises the dimension about the low levels of reliability of information. Therefore the acceptance of an explanation to be good is based on perception. If you consider something to be good then there is a tendency that you will consider it to be true. Therefore in the case of religious knowledge systems good explanations do not always have to be true, they just need to be accepted.

In the context of Ethics, there is an absolute right or wrong. The grey areas only become prominent when discussions arise in context of perspectives and their implications. Thus in relation to the proposition something is either true or it is false, it is either good or bad. There is no particular situation where good explanations always have to be true or bad explanations being perpetually false.

Therefore situations may rise where true explanations might not be good. The deduction of what is true or false is done on the basis of whether it is good or bad for the individual. The example of Hitler's extermination of the Jews is one of the most significant in this context. The reason being, the fact that is, since it was good for the Germans economically, socially and politically, they considered the theory of Social Darwinism to be true even though they had no proof to back it up, except the fact that it was their Fuhrer propagating it. But the questions raised here are whether they are morally correct or not. It is morally correct for the Germans because it was improving their standards of living but at the same time for the Jews, they literally lost everything. Overall the picture proved to be morally and ethically incorrect when it came to gassing of living people, but the earlier stages of moving or shifting people in the ghettos cannot be considered so. Thus it can be considered to be a case of moral absolutism.

The question that rises here is whether is it just moral absolutism against which all situations are judged? There are other parts to a situation like the emotions of a person and how invested they are in a particular situation. This particular example can be associated with lawyers and lawsuits as well. There are a number of cases where the law suit was lost even though the person was correct, but the lawyer's explanation was not good enough. On the other hand cases also exist where just because the lawyer was good with his explanations the criminals were not punished. An example is the case of Nathan Leopold Junior and Richard Loeb in 1925.

The two boys committed a crime by kidnapping a fourteen year old boy and even though they surrendered to the crime and asked the police to collect the evidence due to the lawyer- Clarence Darrow's close arguments they were not punished. There are major ethical issues that are raised here. The question that rises is what is more important ethical and moral principles or self interest. There might be situations where due to lack in oratory skills, the person's explanation is not good enough but it still might be the truth. Thus in situations like these the truth cannot be discredited just because the presentation was inadequate. This puts reason into conflict with emotion. What is more significant? It depends on how it is perceived. Again the concept of social conformity is important because acceptance might be an issue because the values might be in conflict and disputed with the values. Therefore true explanations do not always have to be good.

In conclusion, Marcus Aurellius said 'Everything we see is in perspective, not the truth' thus the acceptance of good and truth is based on perception of the individual. Just because a certain individual might have biases or prejudices for or against the statement being made does not change its state of truth or false for the general world even though it has changes for that individual. Thus 'good' explanations do not 'have' to be 'true'.