“What is Truth?” This is a question that’s been much on my mind, of late. At first, I intended to write a post on it; and then I realized that I have more to say than would fit into a single post; and then I realized that I have enough for a series of posts; and then I realized that I have no idea how to structure said series of posts. So my plan is simply to begin, and we’ll see how it all plays out.

One of the things that’s been spurring my thinking is my reaction to a recent comment of Lindsay’s. I had linked to a post of Lars Walker’s in which he conjectures that Western civilization is becoming an “honor culture”. Lindsay responded with the following:

It’s actually the ERA of Ethics and it was predicted by the Mayan Calendar … so what he is noticing is part of a trend towards ascension….

When I read this, I was completely nonplussed. My first reactions were various short and pithy riffs on “You can’t be serious,” all of which were a knee-jerk reaction to the phrase “predicted by the Mayan Calendar”.

What we have here, in fact, is a world-view clash. My world-view does not include the possibility that the Ancient Mayans have anything useful to say to me. Their Calendar is an interesting curiousity at most; its predictions, if we even know them accurately, are irrelevant to the 21st century. Suddenly, I am presented with an individual who thinks otherwise, and I have trouble knowing what to make of this.

It occurs to me that many people might have a similar response to my frequent invocations of an ancient Greek named Aristotle, and of a 13th-century friar named Thomas.

Fr. Philip Powell quotes the following scholastic maxim in a post I linked to about a month ago: Never deny, rarely affirm, always distinguish. St. Thomas and his disputants assumed that the point of disputation is to find the truth, and that the two parties to the argument are partners in finding it. And it’s often the case that even if you disagree with your disputant’s position, still he has hold of at least a piece of the truth—and if you simply contradict him at the get go, you lose the opportunity of finding out what it is. Hence, “Never deny.”

Instead, your first duty is to find out just what your disputant is saying. Before you can argue with him, you have to understand his position fully—you have to listen. St. Thomas knew about “active listening” long before the term was coined.

I am not arguing for any kind of intellectual relativism, in which you have your reality and I have mine. When two world-views clash, both cannot be true in all particulars. Which leads me back to the question, “What is truth?”

More later.