On The Nature of Truth

And the words with which we play

Is truth “objective” or is it “subjective?” How does the word “relative” fit into the discussion?

In any given discussion, and especially in a debate, defining one’s terms is essential to making progress. Equivocation is the fallacy of using the same term, in the same discussion or argument, with two different definitions. There are at least three situations in which equivocation may be present.

First, equivocation may occur intentionally when employed by sophistical orators who are seeking to pull the wool over the eyes of their audience or opponent. This is, of course, the most despicable and egregious case of equivocation because it is done with malicious intent. It is this kind of “slick-willy” used car salesman tactics which gave the term “rhetoric” a sour flavor for some people (like Socrates) in the ancient world. “Oh, you misunderstood.” Says Slick Willy, “When I said our state has ‘lemon laws’ protecting buyers I meant a law prohibiting the sale of out of state fruit.”

Very often, though, equivocation occurs completely unintentionally. This can happen when someone is simply not being careful during a prolonged argument. For instance if someone writing an essay at first defines adulthood simply as a legal status granted to citizens who are 18 years of age and older but then later switches to regarding adulthood as defined by a certain level of emotional maturity (without acknowledging an intentional redefinition) it may cause confusion when they argue that “Only adults should be allowed to own a handgun.” One can, of course, entertain a definition, reject it, and replace it later with a new and better definition, but it is important that they acknowledge having done so.¹

Perhaps most frequently, however, equivocation happens between two people in discussion. Both parties are using the same word or term but are unwittingly operating with different definitions. Often people don’t even realize they are doing this and they continue to grow in frustration with one another because they seem unable to move the conversation forward towards any kind of resolution. If one person says, “Happiness is the sole aim toward which all the actions of men are directed” another person may take issue and disagree. The original man speaking may have an operating definition for happiness as “A sustained sense of well-being and satisfaction” whereas the second man may define happiness as mere “Pleasure.” Regardless of how that debate may end, or whether or not the original claim is true, it will never be a productive conversation unless both people acknowledge and make use of the same definition for the term happiness.

It is this third situation (confusion of definition between two people or parties) which typically affects questions concerning the nature of truth. Christian thinkers typically state “Truth is objective and not subjective.” Also commonly stated by the same group of people is the claim that “Truth is not relative.” I myself would affirm both of those statements, but I acknowledge some clarification is necessary in order to be clear what we mean by this. Let’s begin by defining the term “truth.”

Truth is that which corresponds to reality. Stated another way, truth is an accurate accounting of the way things actually are (or have been, or will be, or would be in a given situation, etc.). The employment of terms like objective versus subjective are meant to add further clarification. This only works, however, if those terms are equally well defined.

When Christian philosophers and theologians say truth is objective they are communicating the idea that truth has an existence of its own, apart from the individual thinker or observer. Truth is an object external to the one who perceives (or who fails to perceive). The moon is an object and has its being (existence) whether or not you have ever observed it before. The moon continues to have being even if you close your eyes and declare it anathema and wish that it wasn’t real. The moon’s existence is not contingent upon your knowledge of it or your feelings about it. It’s an object that is there, like it or not.

The term subjective is used to refer to that which is true of an individual observer’s own person, thoughts, emotions, etc. “I love pepperoni pizza” is a claim I might make about me as opposed to about something external to me (like the moon). The truth of the statement “I love pepperoni pizza” does not depend on any reality external to me, it depends on the internal reality of my own tastes. It is this notion which tends to get people confused when they start claiming “Truth is subjective” or saying that “truth is relative.”

People who claim that “truth is subjective” are attempting to say that truth only exists as inward judgment of individual minds. Yet this is clearly absurd. The moon doesn’t care whether you believe in it or not, it remains despite you. But perhaps it would be better to modify the claim, lessen its extent, and simply say “some truth is subjective” or “some truth is relative.” That at least sounds more reasonable. Ultimately, however, it is only true in one sense and completely false in another.

If I say “I love pepperoni pizza” there is a sense in which that truth is subjective, because it is about me. But there is another sense in which that truth is objective. If it is in fact the case that “I love pepperoni pizza” (and I have many who will attest to this fact under oath) then it is an objective fact that I do love pepperoni pizza. Because claims about me are only subjective to my own self, but they are objective for you. It’s true that this truth of my love for pepperoni pizza depends on me, but if it is the case that I do in fact love pepperoni pizza then it is true for all people that I love it. I am an object in your world and my loves are facts about me and part of what you can properly ascribe to my being.

The term "relative” is essentially the same issue. When Christian thinkers say “the truth is not relative” they are right in one sense and wrong in another. They are right to note that truth in general is not relative to each individual. We don’t get to make our own truths (outside of developing our own personal taste, knowledge, or character and speaking of ourselves). The moon remains the moon regardless of any particular individual’s thoughts or feelings and this is what Christian thinkers are trying to say when they say “truth is not relative.”

But in another sense the truth is relative. The word “relative” speaks to the issue of “relation” between two or more things. The definition of truth given above was that it corresponds to reality. Again, we might say, it is relative to reality. The truth relates to the way things actually are. The question is one of final standards. The Christian thinker is arguing that each individual cannot be the final standard of truth. An individual who denies the existence of Earth’s moon is a true lunatic, but the person who affirms his madness by saying “your truth is as good as mine” is even worse. The standard of truth cannot be individuals, it must be something that transcends individuals (even though it includes them and their subjective judgments).

Truth is brutal. It is just a description of reality itself.

Once this is understood then it becomes apparent that statements like, “Christianity is true for you but not for me” are simply misguided. One might say “You believe Christianity is true, but I don’t believe it,” but that is completely different than saying it is true for you and it is not true for me. The statements “God exists” and “Jesus rose bodily from the dead on the third day” are equivalent in kind to “Earth has one moon” and not equivalent to “I (Jacob) love pepperoni pizza.” It could be true that “I believe Jesus rose from the dead” without it being true that Jesus of Nazareth actually rose from the dead. But the statement “Jesus of Nazareth rose bodily from the dead” is an objective claim about reality which is either true or false depending upon whether or not he did, in fact, rise. It is also objectively true or false that “I believe Jesus rose from the dead.” I do believe this, therefore it is objectively true for all people that I believe it.

So define your terms, gain clarity, and avoid nonsense.

1. Consider how often Socrates does this in dialogues like Republic and Euthyphro. Just note that he always identifies the problematic definitions and clears them away before introducing a new candidate definition.