|
In the past I have found the concept of truths of a personal nature to be problematic. Surely truths should be of an objective nature if they are, in fact, true. Take the statement “I am the sort of person capable of rescuing a child from a burning building”. If this statement were to be true there would have to be at least some third- person, objective, perspective to it. Perhaps “I” have actually done such a thing. I may be a fireman who is at least trained in this area. Or a soldier with skills which would transfer to a “child in a burning building” situation. And these facts would be observable by others. It is important here to distinguish between personal truths and objective, third-party facts. A fact frequently referred to in the philosophy of mind is that the mind is something that is not perceivable by ‘none’ but perceivable by ‘one’. That a mind, any mind, involves a first person perspective accessible only to that person is a great difficulty for those who attempt to explain consciousness in materialistic terms. A person’s experience is only accessible to himself while behaviour associated with this experience is what is observable by others as well as himself. This may be macroscopic behaviour, for instance of an interpersonal nature, or microscopic behaviour such as brain chemistry. Therefore a fact, such as that I am a person capable of rescuing a child from a burning building, involves the observation of behaviour from a third-person perspective in an objective manner. A ‘fact’ that is not at least potentially observable objectively by another is a ‘falsehood’. If it is a personal truth of mine that “I” am capable of rescuing a child from a burning building then this truth is part of my identity as a person. David Hume distinguished between ‘ideas’ and ‘impressions’ as follows. If someone conceptualises what it is like to burn his finger he will have an ‘idea’ of it. If, on the other hand, he actually sets a match to his finger he will have an ‘impression’, a direct and immediate experience, of what burning one’s finger is actually like. A personal truth is an immediately experienced part of one’s identity. However… Just as a shared delusion about reality is a pseudo-fact regardless of any consensus to the contrary, a truth of a personal nature requires more than the desire on the part of the person in question that it should be true in order for it to be, in fact, true. Just as a fact must have an objective existence independent of any observation a personal truth must entail an objective aspect for it to be true. For instance, to believe oneself to be capable of rescuing a child from a burning building in the absence of any track record whatsoever in this area is self-deception, at least until further developments, actions, training, might render this belief true. A mainstream Christian would hold that the statement “the truth is what I say it is simply because I say it” to be factually accurate when uttered by God and Him alone. The Bible tells of how Satan was expelled from Heaven for the crime of aspiring to usurp the place of God. We may well all have truths of a personal nature, mine different from yours or his or hers, but we must at all times remember to ask ourselves the question “how true are these truths?”. Brendan Burke MA(Phil) Cork Unitarian Church 3rd November 2007
|