As I was reflecting on a recent crisis (it does not really matter, they all seem to be the same at this point) I noticed that as part of the discussion, the author mentioned that people had to face "some hard truths".
Which got me to thinking about the nature of hard truths.
A hard truth (metaphorically speaking of course; there are limited number of actual hard truths such as "Gravity" or "Rocks are hard") is something, connotatively speaking, is difficult to face although it remains true. The implication is that it is something that we have either consciously overlooked or consciously ignored but need to be confronted with.
But the nature of this phrase has changed over the years. Now, a "hard truth" has less to do with the nature of the truth and more to do with those who are listening to it.
Today, a hard truth is usually trotted out in an argument. The implication is now not so much that the truth is hard to face; it is that the people that are facing it are either limited in scope of understanding or are simply too stupid to understand it. Someone throws out, for example, that "It is a hard truth, Bob, that all Christians are anti-science" thus implying that if you argue against this, you really are anti-science as well and just cannot see it.
I would concur with those that say in the current world, the nature of truth is such that these arguments are easier to make - after all, if truth is not a fixed thing, almost anything is hard by default simply because it is based less on facts and data and more on feelings and wishes. Still, saying something is a hard truth in the modern era is, more often than not, simply a very polite way of saying to the opposite side "You are an ignorant fool who is unable to see things the right way."
Unusual thing about hard truths thought: like the example of gravity and rocks, they eventually do become "hard". And often, quite punishing.
TB I am too dang stupid to appreciate all kinds of hard truths out there, because my realities seem to conflict with them. It used to be that when some idiot got in my face, and asserted his right to free speech and personal opinions - I would assert mine right back at them. Usually in very uncomplimentary terms.
ReplyDeleteThe older I get, the less I care. If your cold, hard truth doesn't fit my realities but works fine for you - smile and use it, I guess. I've seen any number of people trying to invert or distort reality to accommodate their pretty lies, and my cold hard truth has always been that reality is what it is, and if you defy it you do so at your peril.
'Dja ever wonder why the ancient Egyptian civilization's history is so murky? One dynasty of Pharaohs would build monuments, and record its history on them. The next dynasty would come in and erase that history from the monuments and replace it with its own. That became the new history; the new "hard truth." The previous version of history would be erased in the usual manner (demonize/kill anyone who professed it). The "digital age" has only made this easier...
ReplyDeleteGood observation. It seems that folks usually throw things like that out when they don't have facts to back up their argument.
ReplyDeleteReality always wins Glen. The problem is that we are dealing less in reality any more and more in posturing and virtue signaling. I do not mind people making bad decisions - I just ask they accept the responsibility for the bad decisions and learn from them. Now, people are making bad decisions that people 60 years hence will have to endure. All because they could not accept the hard truths aka reality.
ReplyDeleteFair enough Pete. But I wonder in some cases if we are in more danger than ever of truly losing knowledge - we have digitized things to the point where we can (literally) make history and truth disappear.
ReplyDeleteIt certainly seems that way to me, Leigh.
ReplyDelete