Truth and trust: necessary but elusive

Truth, as a quality of speech that matches with reality, facts and events seems to be at a premium in our daily interactions.

A Free Press editor maintains truth as a media imperative. Political parties and their leaders ask us to choose sides based on their representations of facts and realities. Religious leaders claim absolute truths for their competing beliefs. We are bombarded with warnings about scams, fake news, propaganda and other deceptions.

Opinion writers like me are frequently charged with not telling the whole truth, missing or distorting it. Nevertheless, truth is essential for trust, and both are critical to democracy.

Philosophers beginning with Plato, have over the ages, unsatisfactorily struggled with the question of what constitutes reality and truth. Their responses have ranged from “the human world is just an illusion generated and tolerated by God, or the gods” to “reality is fundamentally a socio-political construction of humans” to everything in between.

At their limits, the first leads us in the direction of powerlessness, possibly resignation and resentment. Truth and reality are always out of reach — as in the “real world” is where we are not. The second suggests that we are in never ending competition with each other in shaping and determining our own truths and realities. Like the Cheshire cat in Alice in Wonderland our words are what we say they are, facts changing according to the latest whim.

One thing there seems to be an agreement on is that our words, whether in speech or written forms, reveal our notions of truth and reality. But within that concurrence philosophers and politicians mostly take very different approaches. Philosophers are expected to take a hands-off, dispassionate, more descriptive perspective while politicians tend to be hands-on, subjective and prescriptive. Thankfully, neither can claim the last word but thankfully both can contribute to our understandings.

Two people whose efforts I appreciate a great deal are the world-renowned German philosopher Jurgen Habermas and the first post-communist and last Czechoslovakian president, well-known Vaclav Havel. Both see truth-telling as a moral imperative and civic virtue indispensable to democracy.

Habermas frequently commented on European and world politics, imagined a communicative ethics he called the ideal speech situation. Truth-telling in speech and writing, telling the whole truth in an understandable way for the possibility of ethical agreement, had as its goal uncoerced human consensus on matters of human morality and justice. The keys were fostering conversations open to all, under conditions which promoted equality about matters significant to human solidarity, a living together in harmony. In essence he turned philosophical thinking into political involvement.

Havel openly promoted truth and the importance of civic virtue, the responsibility to participate responsibly in the affairs of government. His strong belief in participatory democracy included support for multiple, competing political parties, and involvement in European “conscience and solidarity” efforts like NATO and the European Union. In essence, he turned political action into philosophical reflection open to all.

Habermas and Havel shared was a strong optimism about the capacity of people to deal with realities head on, respecting and including all others by making provisions for their direct involvement in the conversations affecting their lives and that of others. They saw, from their different positions and varying perspectives, social and political harmony as an overriding moral imperative. Their views require a deep-seated trust in the human condition and faith in human possibility. It seems to me that real trust between people is impossible without a commitment to mutual respect and reciprocal truthfulness.

As for myself, I make no claims in living up to either of their ideals, even though in my quieter moments I wish I could. I cannot imagine knowing, and thus telling, the “whole truth” about even a single event, let alone world affairs. I sometimes think the world would be better off without some people, and I suspect that some people feel the same way about me. I find myself wishing some people would not speak up as I find their views generally distasteful, unsympathetic and hurtful knowing that mine might be viewed similarly by others.

What to do?

I simply do not trust some people with democracy, even though I am aware of my need to be inclusive and give others the same benefit of the doubt that I allow myself. And so, I keep thinking, speaking and writing, inviting others to help me live up to the ideals of truth and trust I espouse publicly.

John R. Wiens is dean emeritus at the faculty of education, University of Manitoba.