This is a journal entry from a literary theory class I'm taking. Thought it might stimulate some discussion.
Little Johnny sits with a quaint expression on his face, sticking his pudgy little fingers into the corner of his mouth and slurping the oozy jelly remaining on his pilfering little fingers. The empty jar rattles as he plunges a butter knife into every crevice, searching for any remaining peanut butter.
Just now, his mother comes into the room and sees him slinking behind the kitchen table. She says “Have you been getting into the pb and jelly again?! Didn’t I tell you not to eat anymore!!! And now you’re lying to me? You’re going to learn to tell the truth.”
“Uh.. . ., I forgot mommy. I didn’t mean to.” But, his story is unconvincing. 5 minutes later, Johnny is contemplating his red behind and the notion of his mother’s “truth.” Johnny has begun with rapid instruction an education into the notion of truth, and his mother doesn’t include stories tailor made to individual circumstances, whims, and wishes. When he told his mother he forgot her wishes, he wanted to believe in this “truth,” and he almost did.
But individuals believing in self-contained truth is not enough to establish a well-fitting definition of truth; no, more is needed, as the mothers of the world will attest. Our perception of truth must coincide, at least generally, with others of our contemporaries. Johhny had not forgotten his command, and because his mother knew this, we can agree that the mother’s “truth” was an external factor gauged by Johnny’s actions, something on which deconstructionists and formalists will likely agree. However, her thoughts on the matter can’t only be based on external “truth.” Whether Johnny really forgot or not is irrelevant to the mother’s decision of what truth is. Mommy needs to place her anger caused by the depleted peanut butter on something tangible—namely Johnny. As such, her truth is a set of tailor-made explanations regarding what she needs to feel. Sound familiar? She may be correct in her assessment of Johnny, but she would still hold the same view if she were mistaken.
We have now arrived where deconstructionists and formalists separate. Formalists will instruct us to look for absolute, tangible, ax + by =0, formulaic relations between our identities, our thoughts, our literature, and our realities. However, deconstructionists will be quick to decipher our inability to mesh the signified with the signifiers in such an external truth. As such, deconstructionist’s literary meanings, relations, and theories seem to be much more ephemeral, dynamic, and elusive. After all, we cannot step outside the lens with which we view our world, and we have only general similarities in lenses between our brothers and sisters. Therefore, gray is a fitting color for deconstructionist, (if I’m understanding their argument correctly.) While absolute truth may exist, all we will ever have will be our signifiers of truth, representing something which will never be physically tangible.
We are as scientists. I recall one of the opening lines in my Biology book: “There is no truth in science.” No, “scientific theory” is considered to be the best possible explanation taking into account all available evidence at any given time. Because possibilities for new information are infinite and our capability of handling such information is finite, theories are always open to change. “Truth” is open to change.
As we can see, the notion of truth is an abstract concept that is difficult to decipher and impossible to integrate consistently with every person. There is no absolute meaning that we as humans can attain and hope for. So, we must define this notion of truth in a way that is not concrete, but rather, as something changeable. We cannot speak legitimately of a common reality, but rather a personal reality. Hence, I propose that a good definition of truth does not involve what we cannot express or experience. Rather, truth should be viewed as a frame of mind.
But, we walk a fine line between having a definition that encompasses enough, and one that is too unrestrictive. As humans, we strive to make value judgments based on truth, yet if truth is too elusive, we feel lost and lacking. So, a good definition of truth must include an ability and willingness to examine our motives, thoughts, experiences, etc. Yet, we must simultaneously reject what is not useful or too unsettling. Maybe Johnny was right. Maybe he uttered truth. Maybe truth is something for keeping ourselves away from mental trouble. Perhaps we’d rather experience a red bottom than to look in the mirror every day with no clue, wondering what notion will be lambasted with conflicting, surging chaos in the near future, but not lying to ourselves and others. Yes, comfort and security, while sometimes inaccurate, articulate desires within the human psyche that are more powerful than any “truth,”—they are “truth.” Many structuralists reside in humankind, and the peanut butter jar is often empty.