The Importance of Truth (Part 2)

So what is truth to us. Is it a set of words that simply make sense or an idea that is what it is. If truth was simply a set of words to form meaning then the statement "oranges are white" would be true. The words make sense and the statement if visualised properly can make it true in our mind. But is it really true? From what we know of oranges we can deduce that oranges are in fact orange in colour. Is it possible for an orange to be white? Yes it is possible in any given universe including ours that oranges are white in colour. However it is not currently the case (at least not that I know of) that oranges are white in colour.

The words we use are important in defining truth, as we all know how words can have several meanings in different contexts. So how do we pin point the truth? Well firstly the words have to make universal sense. What I mean by that is, the words we use cannot have multiple meanings. Is there such a set of words? Secondly the context of the situation has to correspond with the words. Here is an example I thought of just now: There are three men in a room. Their names are Ram, Joe, and Lee. Ram poses the question, "who is Lee?" to Joe. Joe answers the question, "Lee is Lee", to Ram. I think that would make the perfect indisputable truthful answer. "Lee is Lee" is universally true because Lee cannot be Joe or Ram or anybody else as there are only three people in the room. The answer "Lee is Lee" in this context would be universally true. The only way this answer cannot be true is if Lee is not Lee, but in this case the narrator of the situation (myself) clearly explains that there are only three people in the room, one of which is Lee. Now what if Joe answered in the traditional fashion and said, "this is Lee" while pointing in his direction. Could that in any circumstance be a false statement? Using the word "this" makes the description of the person very vague. However since I have stated that there are only three people in the room, it becomes clear that Joe is pointing to Lee when introducing him. If I threw in a fourth person into the room, lets call him Sam, the statement "this is Lee" would have some problems. Even though Joe might be pointing in Lee's direction one can argue that he was pointing at Sam assuming Sam was standing beside Lee. To avoid this confusion we change the sentence to "Lee is Lee", while pointing in Lee's direction. This way the statement is true in any context, with any number of people, whether or not Ram misunderstands who Lee is a different story. But by using the word "this" to describe Lee, you are left with multiple meanings in multiple contexts.


In reality of course we would not use such a statement to describe a person because it would be to tedious. Can you imagine being in a social situation and introducing a friend to another friend. "Hey Arch, who's Lee?" asks Sam. Arch answers, "Lee is Lee". Sam looks at Arch like he's loosing his mind.


What Sam really wants to know is the where abouts of this person named Lee, not who he is. Who he is would be a question for Lee himself. In the words of Billy Crystal from the movie Analyze This "who am I, that is the question". We tend to ask the wrong questions expecting the right answers. I believe if we are to find the truth then precision in words and in context must be executed.