What Is Truth? Relativism, Realism, The Word?

If you were asked, “What is truth?”, what would you say? Take a moment and define the word “truth.”

“It’s not fair,” a three-year old said to me just the other day when I would not give him what he wanted. Very early in our lives we start using words that are hugely important, such as “fair,” “love,” “happy,” “real,” “God,” etc. It is easy to continue to use hugely important words without ever having straightened out what they really mean.

Let’s take time to make sure we are not doing that with “truth,” especially after celebrating the birth of the One Who is “the Way and the Truth and the Life” (John 14:6), and as we continue to hear words like “fake,” “liar,” and “bias” in our contentious politics.

Whatever Happened to “Your Truth and My Truth”?

Maybe one good result of our polarized politics is that we as a society are getting out of the Relativism, or Subjectivism, which had become entrenched since the 1960s. One typical expression of Relativism is “You have your truth, and I have my truth.”

Relativism is the philosophy which says that a thing is whatever someone thinks or feels it is, that there are only points of view and opinions. According to Relativism, not only beauty, but all reality is in the eye of the beholder. U. S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy once wrote in a majority opinion, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”  You cannot get more Relativist than that.

The opposite philosophy is Realism, or Objectivism, which says that a thing is what it is  – regardless of what someone thinks or feels it is. Realism is the elaboration of the common sense possessed by every two-year old. There is an objective difference between a wall and a door, a piece of candy and a vegetable, walking and falling, getting attention and being ignored.

We all think philosophically, whether we want to or not, know it or not. As St. John Paul the Great said, “The human being by nature is a philosopher” (Fides et Ratio, 64). At the bottom of all our thoughts are assumptions about reality. Human beings cannot not philosophize just as they cannot not breathe in order to live. The question is not whether each of us has a philosophy; the question is whether each of us has a good philosophy or a bad philosophy.

Relativism is tempting because it is rooted in the common phenomena of two different people, who are experiencing the same thing, but in different ways, having different perceptions, and having different tastes or preferences. For example, it is no surprise when two people like different ice cream flavors. This is subjectivity. Everyone agrees that human beings can be subjective.

The opposite of subjectivity is objectivity, which is experiencing or seeing something as it really is. For example, seeing that a scoop of ice cream is not a scoop of mashed potatoes is being objective about that scoop. What people have disagreed about is whether, or about what, or to what degree human beings can be objective.

Have you heard “You have your truth, and I have my truth” or “different people think different ways” when the topic is racism, climate change, Donald Trump, lockdowns and masks to avoid Covid, or any other current hot-button topic? I haven’t. We are not hearing “One person’s racism is another person’s justice, and who’s to judge?” Or “You don’t want to follow the science, and I do want to follow the science, but it’s all good.” Those who believe in climate change and systemic racism propose them as objective truths. These proponents do not allow “climate deniers” and the “biased” to define their own “concepts of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life” in ways that exclude climate change and systemic racism.

Subjectivity and Truth

Whether we like chocolate ice cream better than vanilla ice cream or vanilla better than chocolate, chocolate is still chocolate (and NOT vanilla), vanilla is still vanilla (and NOT chocolate), and ice cream is still ice cream (and NOT mashed potatoes).  This means that when we are rightfully subjective about flavors, our subjectivity does not alter the objective realities. To be subjective about a thing does NOT make that thing itself subjective. When we are subjective about a thing, that thing still is objective, it still is what it is.

Reality is OUTSIDE the mind. Truth is INSIDE the mind. A thought (or its spoken or written expression) is true ONLY when it agrees with, fits, matches, describes, is in touch with reality. A thought (or its expression) is false when it does NOT fit or match reality, when it is out of touch with reality. Is the statement The door of the room is open true or false? The answer depends on whether the statement matches, fits, agrees with, describes, is in touch with the reality of the door.

Truth is knowing reality as reality actually is. Truth is always objective. It can never be subjective.

The problem with Relativism is that it takes subjectivity too far. It considers “truth” to be whatever matches not reality, but one’s emotions, desires, or perceptions. That “truth” can be about God, morality, sexuality, or anything else. Something is “true to me” depending on “how I feel,” “what I want,” or “how I see it.” When we are under the influence of Relativism, we never ask, “But are my feelings, desires, or perceptions in touch with reality?”

If Relativism were true, several things would follow. There would be nothing but bias and prejudice; bias and prejudice can only be bad when they contradict the objective truth about reality. We would never have to agree with each other, for example on whether there is systemic racism, since there would be nothing but personal viewpoints. We should not have to “follow the science” since science would be nothing more than an opinion. There would be no answer to “Who’s to judge that my bias is right or wrong, that I should agree with someone, that I should follow the science?”

Funny how Justice Kennedy did not allow for “the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life” to exclude compliance with the U. S. Supreme Court. Taken to its logical conclusion, Relativism is self-contradictory. If everything is subjective, then considering everything subjective is also only subjective, and there are no grounds for disagreeing with someone who asserts that truth is objective. And it is absurd to conclude that it is perfectly subjective to be objective. In the words of G. K. Chesterton, “Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth [to eat], is to shut it again on something solid.”

Maybe we can hope it is becoming clearer to everyone in our society that all of us need to seek the objective truth about all things. There is a call for our country to become more unified. Let us unite in discovering the objective truth about things – the climate, racism, God, sexuality.

Relativism and being unduly subjective remain constant temptations because to admit that truth is objective is to admit that when we disagree with the truth, we are mistaken. A few clarifications are in order here.

It is important, especially in our political climate, to know the difference between a mistake and a lie. What mistakes and lies have in common is that there is something false about both of them. We tell lies when we want others to think something is true that we know is really false, e.g., “The dog ate my homework.” We make mistakes when we sincerely believe something is true that is really false, e.g., “We’ll leave for Milwaukee on the 20th” when we are really leaving on the 21st.  All lies are falsehoods, but not all falsehoods are lies.

It is also important to know that there is a difference between an “epistemological wrong” and a “moral wrong.” Epistemology is the study of knowing. We all make epistemological mistakes – we misunderstand something, we get our facts wrong, we draw a wrong conclusion, etc. We all also make moral mistakes – we choose to do something immoral, we commit a sin, etc. It is NOT automatically a sin to have a false idea, including a false idea about God. It is a sin, however, to be willfully ignorant and willfully stubborn about not admitting the truth – about anything.

Getting Subjectivity Right

There is nothing wrong with subjectivity itself. It is impossible never to be subjective. The mistake is to consider subjective what really is objective.

Whenever people have different perceptions, the next question should be: Whose perception is most in touch with reality? “Different people have different perceptions” describes NOT what is OUTSIDE people’s minds, but only what is INSIDE people’s minds.

Catholic doctrine is objectively true. “For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man” is objectively true. It describes reality. The Creed’s “I believe in one God” really means NOT “I feel there is one God” or “I imagine there is one God,” BUT “I know (from Divine Revelation) there is one God.” Someone who disagrees with Catholic doctrine is mistaken, although God still loves him; and because God loves him, God “wills everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4).

Proper subjectivity in Catholic Faith is found in spirituality which is in harmony with Catholic doctrine. Whether one prefers to pray while kneeling, sitting, or walking, such subjectivity is pleasing to God as long as it is directed to Him – the One, True God – and not to a false belief about God. The many spiritualities and religious orders in the Church’s history attest to the Catholic ability to be properly subjective. A Benedictine spirituality or a Dominican spirituality makes no difference to God as long as its practitioner is growing in orthodox Catholic Faith.

Emotions and desires are NOT bad in and of themselves. They make us human and not machines. It is psychologically healthy to be in touch with our emotions and desires. However, our emotions and desires tell us NOT about reality, BUT about ourselves. Contrary to Relativism, we should NOT be governed by our emotions and desires. We should use truth to govern our emotions and desires.

Real Catholics are never afraid of the truth. Real Catholics always seek the truth. Everyone should go wherever the truth leads them. There is a long list of brilliant people who began as non-Catholics, even atheists, and then became Catholics precisely because they were committed to the truth. To name some: St. Paul, St. Augustine, St. John Henry Newman, G. K. Chesterton, Evelyn Waugh, Edith Stein, J. R. R. Tolkien, Sigrid Undset, Jacques Maritain, Graham Greene, Alasdair MacIntyre, Mortimer Adler, Avery Cardinal Dulles, Fr. Richard Neuhaus, and Elizabeth Fox-Genovese.

In order to face reality, we need the help and support of others. We, in turn, should try to help others face reality. The best way to face reality is to be a follower and a friend of Jesus Christ in the Catholic Church He founded. We Catholics need to ally ourselves with all people of good will who honestly seek the truth.

Grant, we pray, almighty God,

that, as we are bathed in the new radiance of your Incarnate Word,

the light of faith, which illumines our minds,

may also shine through in our deeds.

Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,

who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,

One God, for ever and ever.

– Collect for Christmas, the Mass at Dawn