Truth – Is It In the Eye of
Or Is It an Absolute?
Written by JB Williams
The word TRUTH seems so simple and basic, doesn’t it? Yet even
Merriam-Webster struggles to find the words to define such a simple concept.
- sincerity in
action, character, and utterance
- the state of
being the case : FACT
- the body of
real things, events, and facts
- the property
(as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality
They were doing fine with these attempts to define TRUTH, right up
until they added this line in the 10th On-Line Edition…
- a judgment,
proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true
My guess is, the same folks who broadly interpret “freedom of
religion” to mean “freedom from religion”, came up with this
late addition to the definition which totally changes the meaning of the word
TRUTH. Today, TRUTH doesn’t have to be FACT
or TRUE at all. It only needs to be a JUDGMENT or PROPOSITION
which has been ACCEPTED as TRUE…
It turns out that Bill Clinton was correct – It does depend upon
what the meaning of “IS” is… TRUTH is no longer absolute,
it’s subjective. Both ignorance and faulty interpretations of fake
things, non-events and partial facts, qualify as TRUTH, as long as enough
people ACCEPT it.
Now, if that ain’t a great definition of LIBERAL, nothing is!
Life before gray matter was much easier. Webster’s 1823
Dictionary had much less trouble defining TRUTH. Of course, that’s before
liberals began broadly re-defining lots of things…
- Conformity to
fact or reality; exact accordance with that which is, or has been, or
shall be. The truth of history constitutes its whole value. We rely on the
truth of the scriptural prophecies.
- True state of
facts or things. The duty of a court of justice is to discover the truth.
Witnesses are sworn to declare the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
Apparently in 1823, people knew what TRUTH was and they were committed
to finding and making decisions based on those absolutes. Today, some clearly
much prefer to make up their own TRUTH as they go, usually to suit their
provides the perfect example.
Did we conquer Iraq?
Or did we liberate Iraq?
Did we invade a country? Or did we depose the world’s most brutal and
dangerous self-appointed regime? Are we fighting Islamic terrorists,
neighboring thugs and local criminals in Iraq?
Or are we killing innocent Iraqi civilians, better known as
It seems we agree on none of these questions today and that isn’t
because the TRUTH doesn’t exist. It’s because we are free to choose
which TRUTH best suits our personal or political agendas… Merriam-Webster
Those who believe only in absolute TRUTHS, based on the 1823 definition
of the word, believe that we liberated the Iraqi people from the most brutal
and dangerous regime on earth and are fighting a combination of Islamic
terrorists, neighboring thugs and local criminals in an effort to secure a war
torn region and provide an opportunity for peace, prosperity and freedom on
behalf of the Iraqi people. We have plenty of REAL
THINGS, EVENTS and FACTS to support this belief. Some call it the TRUTH as a
However, those who live in a world of no absolutes, where TRUTH is
indeed in the eye of the beholder, where TRUTH is nothing more than “a
judgment, proposition, or idea that is accepted as true”, believe that we
have invaded, conquered and occupy a nation, targeting innocent Iraqi citizens
(insurgents) for our own selfish purposes. There are no REAL
THINGS, EVENTS or FACTS to support this belief, but there doesn’t need to
be. This belief need only be ACCEPTED as TRUE
in order to be TRUE.
That’s why you see polling data that makes no sense today.
According to our illustrious press, we are supposed to cast votes on the basis
of what we accept to be true, on the basis of what they (the press) tell
us is true, of course. It no longer matters what IS TRUE.
It only matters what the people believe to be TRUE.
That’s the basis upon which they will cast their votes.
And that’s why so much effort, so much money is poured into
making sure that the voting public ACCEPTS the right thing as TRUE.
Nobody in the press worries about what IS true, because there are no absolutes
anyway. All that matters is what the people believe to be true, whether
supported by REAL THINGS, EVENTS and FACTS
or not. In the case of today’s press, most often not…
This might also explain why today’s politicians often take
actions at odds with their statements. They have a pretty good idea of what the
people want to hear. Since there are no real absolutes, neither politician nor
voter is restricted to FACTS. Both are free to use any set of TRUTHS that suit
Are we in a good economy or an awful economy? The hard numbers provide
the TRUTHFUL answer. But when those numbers do not support our agenda, we
simply invent new numbers or discredit the generally accepted measuring stick.
Is unemployment doing well or not? Again, the REAL
THINGS, EVENTS and FACTS are indisputable, unless they don’t support your
agenda, in which case you just come up with your own on an as-needed basis.
safer by putting terrorists on the run? Or is it less safe as a result of
confronting terrorists and the regimes that breed, harbor and support them, who
had already grown into an international threat before being confronted? These
things matter because our votes, our nation’s direction, will be driven
by the answers to these questions, true or not.
Those willing to make tough decisions on the basis of REAL
THINGS, EVENTS and FACTS, once known as the TRUTH, will make their decision one
way. Those who allow themselves the latitude of ACCEPTED JUDGMENTS,
PROPOSITIONS AND IDEAS, operating in a sea
of gray matter where no absolutes exist, will make their decision quite another
way - The opposite way, to put a fine point on it.
Our nation is divided today, but not only between republicans and
democrats, conservatives and liberals, right-wing and left-wing. We are divided
right down the line that separates those who believe in ABSOLUTE TRUTH from
those who contend that TRUTH IS SUBJECTIVE, even negotiable.
Both will claim to vote their conscience. But only one of them will
cast their vote on the basis of REAL
THINGS, EVENTS and FACTS. Can you guess what kind of results you can expect
from decisions made upon anything less?
The problem with liberal TRUTH is - it isn’t TRUE,
at least according to the 1823 definition of TRUTH. The problem with
today’s Democratic Party platform of promises is - it isn’t TRUE
either. But don’t expect that to matter to democrat voters.
Merriam-Webster provides the latitude needed to pursue their secular socialist agenda
regardless of what the REAL THINGS, EVENTS
and FACTS say!