Our minds can do a lot of wonderful things. Among them is treating existential questions through the exploration of logical chains. It is not the primary aim to find answers to those questions immediately, but rather solidly identifying the cognitive paths that can lead us there, as well as establishing patterns of thought that can be applied to other questions, too. Surely, the casual thinker will view the utilisation of our mind opportunistically, constantly seeking tangible results and outcomes that are easily and directly applicable. However, the most ambitious cognitive challenges are found in questions that often do not produce definite answers but enrich our thinking by enabling us to utilise our minds in more versatile and structurally stable ways. The questions about our existence are at the forefront of those challenges. Whether we treat the origin of our being, its purpose, its future, its daily operative structure or our perception of it, attempting to treat those questions will produce valuable results if we approach them with the correct logical methods. For example, some approach those existential questions from a spiritual perspective, while others rely more on subjective and social normativity. The devletist school, on the other hand, adopts a seamless structural logic that answers the question of our existence. Another question that is extensively covered in Devlet is about the ontology of the truth. Here, it is argued that the nowadays modern view of the truth being subjective cannot be upheld and that the truth must be something that exists objectively, which is also the topic of this essay. Further, the relationship between the truth, its modern perception and consumption is explored and explained.
Modern Views of the Truth
Due to the increasing plurality of our societies, the ontological view that true is what we believe is true. Contemporary societies are becoming more globalised and transnational in nature. As intersocietal conduct increases, the results of different constellations of interaction vary and reproduce a more fragmented landscape of views and perceptions that form new normative frameworks. The different combinations that arise from the increased global interaction do produce new approaches and views but also create normative instability. The mere existence of new socio-cultural content tends to dilute existing, established frameworks of knowledge and understanding. In other words, as we interact more globally, the interesting new experiences between societies create new perspectives so that the pool of existing experiences increases. Within that pool of socio-cultural experiences and knowledge, the perceived value of existing pieces decreases. Also, the higher accessibility of new socio-cultural knowledge elements creates inflationary pressures on established frameworks of socio-cultural knowledge. In a natural biological response to process this increasingly fragmented landscape of ideas, norms, values and experiences, the human being, for one, tends to categorise those additional pieces of information as easily as possible. It surely has not gone unnoticed by the informed scholar of the political world that there has been an international trend towards bipolarity in political and societal thinking. Today, popular discourse seldom transcends the bipolarity of left and right. This results from so much micro-fragmentation of the socio-cultural experience that the need for simplification has led us to generally view the world in two categories.
In terms of how the truth is perceived, the dilution of existing frameworks of knowledge through globalisation has also led to a weakening of established claims of truth. As more pieces of socio-cultural information emerge due to constantly new globalised interactions, the conflicts between the respective fragments of information increase. Whereas earlier modes of social-cultural knowledge had relatively uniform boundaries and a set of conflicts with equally established frameworks of socio-cultural knowledge, the increasing number of individual cases also interact more intensely at a conflict level among one another. As authoritative claims of truth would deem our societies dysfunctional, the notion of subjective truth has become prominent. It is the idea that every perspective is true and valid by its sheer existence. What is argued to be right in a normative sense is that acknowledging the socio-cultural experience of each individual is merely a pragmatic solution to uphold societal functioning by granting everyone a valid discourse place within society. Due to the higher potential of conflict among those newly emerging socio-cultural experiences, defending a universal truth would invalidate more perspectives at once. As an operative compromise, the notion of subjective truth allows every person to live within their own reality while being generally accepted as true by the wider society. Similarly, the socially constructed truth notion is born out of the idea that we actively shape our reality and that this reality then is to be seen as true. For example, if we believe that a painting does have a certain monetary value, then this is the reflection of the truth as we societally agreed on this value. Attaching value to money in the first place can be viewed as a socially constructed truth. That being so, this view also enables us to artificially create meaning for our lives. By societally agreeing to the value of money and then implementing a system of using this money to create social meaning within society is, in essence, a bypass of true value in favour of our preferred method to quantify societal meaning.
Traditional Views of the Truth
The most traditional view of the truth is the religious view. Regardless of religion, the core idea is that there is a divine being or system that defines the truth at some point in time. Humans then tried to quantify this truth and formulate normative frameworks around it. These frameworks consist of norms, values, and rules that aim to shape our intersocietal and personal behaviour. Truth in the religious sense is not only uniform but also universal. This means that the claim of truth is unchangeable within the religious framework, and this aspect constitutes an important emotional aspect for its followers. As language is dynamically changing, however, the perceptions of different people allow for interpretational deviations, and formulations may be vague at times; the results that readers and followers of religions derive naturally vary. We can see this in the fact that under the umbrella of religions, there are always sub-streams that emerge and are often contradicting. Even within those streams, we can observe that uniformity in the perspective of the truth is essential to its followers. Moreover, as religious views of the truth are uniform and universal, they are also exclusive. Contrary to the belief of subjective truth, where every personally perceived reality is acknowledged as true, religious truth only acknowledges views to be true that lay within the normative framework of the religion. Knowledge in every form is assessed through the normative lens of right and wrong, established by the religion’s main work. This is especially prominent in the scientific realm, where authoritatively proven truths are rejected by religious communities on the grounds of incompatibility with the religious interpretation of truth. On the other hand, the scientific truth, as another traditional form of the truth, defends that only empirically supported findings can be true. Objects need to be tangible or empirically explainable in order to be considered true in this view. This is certainly quite easy to apply to the existence of a tree, as it is a tangible object. If we say, however, that trees and plants grow faster when talked to in a friendly way, this claim will only become true once proven. The difficulty here is that hypotheses are needed to create such a research agenda in the first place. If hypotheses are too abstract in the context of contemporary scientific progress, then social exclusion and denunciation can result, as those hypotheses are considered nonsense. Therefore, the scientific truth is bound to be incremental and does not allow for quick societal progress. Every additional finding needs to be relatively close to previous findings, and the truth, in this sense, is something that will only be discovered slowly.
How Consumption Shapes Our Truths
There are some true dimensions to all forms of truth. Interestingly, they share one common structural deficit: they are socially embedded. They are confined to certain social groups and interests and furthered by them. Most obvious is the case of the religious truth, where a strict formulation of the truth can be valid and shape the normative and operative reality of its followers. But the scientific truth can also be, and often is, a matter of ideology. If a hypothesis lays so much outside of the thinkable scope of contemporary progress, the resistance against finding the truth will become greater than the drive to empirically explore it. In the end, the scientific findings of the day also represent some sort of social status and, therefore, societal value. Religious and scientific approaches to the truth are very similar. Both fulfil the important function of supporting the holder of the view in his views, affirming his personal character. There are ideological dimensions that help the proponents to identify themselves with those truths. It is, therefore, no surprise that defenders of those two types of truth are often very emotional and irrational in defending those claims of truth. They believe so firmly in the truths within their respective frames that they actively reject any other views. In the end, those views represent important parts of their person and perceived individuality. This is also why those two realms are often in conflict. In addition to that, because those two realms are limited to the boundaries of their respective frameworks, the information that can be processed is naturally limited. There are only a few ways in which a religious person can treat new pieces of information, namely in the context of his religion. Scientifically oriented people do the same thing, even though their scope is often not limited at the content level but at the intensity level – they can only accept a limited degree of abstraction. Therefore, the consumption of new pieces of information tends to reaffirm those two frameworks of truth. Everything that is new is being incorporated into the existing frame, basically strengthening its authoritative claim over other forms of truth. From the early days of religion all the way to the invention of the internet, everything has been assessed in the context of the respective religion.
In capitalist societies, the subjective truth has become very popular. The micro-fragmentation of socio-cultural experiences dilutes the rigidity of earlier normative frameworks that were built around virtues. By dismantling those frameworks, people’s normative boundaries are lowered, and with it, the propensity to consume increases. Virtues define rules, and rules are exclusive in nature – they limit our operational freedoms. As virtues decrease, the options for consumption increase because less authoritative rules guide our behaviour. Moreover, the accepted validity of all subjective perspectives reduces inner-societal friction and opens even more venues of consumption as wider portions of the population are won as customers. All of these forms fulfil social functions as they either confirm our personal worldviews or comfort us in the material sense.
The Most Dangerous and Powerful Form of Truth
Among the outlined forms of truth, socially constructed forms of reality are the most dangerous and powerful. As we have briefly looked at money as one of the most obvious examples of the socially constructed truth, we can see that this form is so powerful that all humans participate in upholding this truth for millennia. The same holds true for norms of clothing and eating or even the concept of marriage. Most prominent, however, is the existence of this form of truth when it comes to ethnicities. Perceived hierarchies between different ethnicities are no more than social constructs, which are, interestingly, mostly carried by those who are perceived to be inferior. In essence, the socially constructed truth is a subjective claim or idea that is artificially kept alive by the mental participation of nearly all people in a society. Here, it is not even sufficient for a considerable majority to believe in this social construct. Once a small group questions this construct and stops acting accordingly, the truth claim quickly collapses in itself. Therefore, this form of truth is the most dependent on consumption. Socially constructed truths can only survive with the participation of many people who believe in the claimed truth and are willing to support the survival of it through their behaviour. In the case of ethnic hierarchies, the existence of such hierarchies is, therefore, dependent on the acceptance of such a truth by the subjects. Similar to money, where its value is determined by a reciprocal agreement, inter-societal ranks are defined by the, mostly implicit, agreement of two sides. Further, this can also be extended to political ideologies or intra-societal groups. Once those agreements are in place, they are very difficult to dismantle. As humans get accustomed to some situations as given truths, they are unwilling to change their perspective. While the religious and scientific truths are only applicable to certain sub-groups, the socially constructed truth is something that concerns nearly all within a society. They might be more difficult to establish in the first place and also vanish quickly once dismantled, but while they are in place, they are extremely rigid and sustainable. The best way to dismantle those established social constructs is to boycott the consumption of it. By refusing to participate in the discourse or application of this created truth, it loses its operational grip. It is the most dependent form of truth. While the religious truth can also survive with few followers and the scientific truth can survive even without followers, as there is still objectively seen the possibility for empiric proof, the socially constructed truth needs people to consume it. So, if some ethnicities no longer receive preferential treatment, their hierarchical claim will quickly vanish.
Ultimately, all of the discussed forms of truth are unable to encompass the whole truth. In devletist terms, there is one universal truth that exists independent from us. It does account for our personal perspectives of the truth and why we adopted them in the first place. It is irremovable and unchangeable. Our current interaction with the concept of truth is grounded in personal aspirations rather than intrinsic motives to understand this independently existing truth. But being aware of this is one important and necessary step towards a healthier relationship with the truth and not only our own truths.
