'Your truth may not be my truth'

I have always found it amusing that many of our foremost universities have slogans like veritas (truth) or fiat lux (let there be light), presumably emphasizing their pursuit of enlightenment, and, hence, improving the human condition.

What is often overlooked in many of today’s social interactions, however, in that these admirable goals, such as truth and light, are pursued through dialog, fact-finding, then more dialog. And dialog requires an openness to considering divergent points of view. But increasingly, this process has evolved from dialog to dismissal.

In my experience, this myopia seems all too common in conversations. When someone criticizes diversity, equity and inclusion, for example, people are quick to assume malevolent motives and do not wish to hear the speaker’s arguments. We do not wish to hear arguments why able-bodied citizens should have to work to receive social support. We do not wish to hear arguments why some drug-addicted homeless people should be involuntarily committed to health care facilities for treatment. And we do not wish to hear arguments why transgender boys should not compete in girls’ sports.

In too many of my recent conversations in and around Eugene, I have found discussions are framed as follows: People on the left are correct; people in the middle don’t understand the situation; and people on the right are crazy – or selfish pigs, take your pick. But without healthy debate, learning is limited and we do not improve the human condition.

Some say this lack of openness in Eugene is because 90% of the residents are either far-left or scrambling to become so. Popular doctrines are espoused and seldom questioned. Truth is on their side. However, while no one would ever accuse Eugene of being politically balanced, I don’t think this is the problem. On the rare occasion that I meet someone from the conservative side, this same sense of self-righteousness prevails. We are equal-opportunity purveyors of ignorance.

Instead, I think the problem is that too many of us see truth as absolute, universal and, as the song goes, on our side. But it is not.

Long ago, French philosopher Blaisé Pascal observed, “There are truths on this side of the Pyrenees that are falsehoods on the other.” Pascal was alluding to the fact that, on occasion, what people in France believe to be true, people in Spain believe to be false.

And British actor Peter Ustinov observed, only partly in jest: “In order to reach the truth the Germans add, the French subtract, and the British change the subject. I did not include the Americans, since they often give the impression that they already have the truth.”

It is this last phrase that troubles me.

Do we as Americans actually believe we already have the truth? Are we not willing to listen to other points of view or, at the very least, question the views we are collectively espousing? Without hearing divergent points of view, and without at least considering that these other views have merit, what kind of society are we building? (The word “groupthink” comes to mind.)

To the extent that these observations are correct, it would appear that truth is clearly in the eye of the beholder. That is, your truth may not be my truth – and there may be some very good reasons for this disparity.

For my part, I am tired of being in discussions where only one opinion on a topic is considered true, and opposing opinions are considered misguided, funny or dangerous. It is time to recognize that, at times, there are no universals when it comes to determining what is true.

Perhaps it is time to start by listening – harder – to alternative points of view, recognizing that there are usually reasons behind these divergent viewpoints. People have different experiences, and this drives their perceptions of what is true and what is not.

If we start listening more attentively, we might end up with a better, more integrated society where we can work together with people who may never become close friends, but who can help us better understand today’s problems, as well as identify workable pathways toward solutions. If we are serious about being inclusive, here is a good place to start.

As Frasier Crane used to say on the classic TV sitcom, “Frasier”: “I’m listening.”