Truth as an Object / Truth as a Journey

I've written about truth before (from the vantage point of falsifiability) but like most things, my mind has been kicking around some ideas.

I used to think of "the truth" as a treasure to be found. I could think, read, maybe even actually discover what the "right" answers were to life's most perplexing questions, but mainly about God.

I have always wanted to believe, but I have always been dogged by doubt. For every reason to believe there is a reason to doubt. For every yin a yang, for every black a white. I can argue every side inside and out and if you let yourself do that, it's quite exhausting. 

Unknowingly, I had adopted a traditional Western view of the truth. It goes something like this:

There is only one truth and (surprise) it just so happens to align to my beliefs.

In other words, truth is a zero sum game; a science experiment; a mathematical equation to be solved. The truth is singular, definable, and crystal clear. Ignoring the fact that this idea of truth flies in the face of lived human experience and it's utterly convincing and cutting in its logic. Above all, truth is a thing, an object, an idea to find and believe in.

For the most part, I still stand by this idea. That is, the truth is the truth. Facts are facts (and not alternative facts). Science is a great way of understanding the universe (evolution, vaccines, etc.) math is great (yay, bridges)!

Here comes the but....

But the truth is more complicated than only understanding the world and experiences through a reductionist lens.

Simply put, science is critical to creating a better life for humans but science can't tell us how to live or tell us what the meaning of life should be. Science is the blank coloring page, you can't change the outline, but we decide how to color it and embellish it.

Let me clarify, that yes, I am oversimplifying it, and maybe even overstating my argument. For example, evolution has guided our decisions and there is evidence to suggest we have already made a choice for before our brains are even aware of that choice being made. This is not an air-tight argument, it's a blog. So, while I maintain math and science truth as "captial T truth"...I also find this kind of truth alienating on a personal level. Our metaphors for truth don't fit the lived experience of most humans.

Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about that is unrelated to truth but related to time.

In the west we see time as moving forward and our metaphors for time involved "getting over things", "moving on", etc. However, our lived experience as time do not match the lived experiences (how often a simple memory can take us right back to a trauma). However, other cultures use a metaphor of walking backwards. We can only see the past, not the future we're stumbling into. I find this metaphor much closer to reality.

I've come to believe truth isn't an object but a journey we take, and on that journey, and hopefully, at best, the truth unfolds before you. Of course there is a place for science and math truth, but to force that kind of metaphor into our relationships, religious or spiritual realm, personal choice, art, etc. it doesn't work so well. Maybe I just don't want everything to be explained by science. I prefer the metaphor of a walk. I may wander here a bit, I may get lost, I may even stop for awhile. If I saw it was a zero sum game, maybe I have a personal crisis or breakdown, but if I see truth and life, as one long adventure, I can have the wherewithal to keep going.
 
Last spring I had a rabbi come to our multifaith forum and she shared this story with our panel. I think it's a good place to end.

"The Baal Shem quoted the Psalm, "Truth shall spring out of the earth" (85:12) and asked, "Surely it must be easy to find Truth?" "Indeed it is easy, " he continued, "but no one wants to bend down. No one is willing to stoop to pick up a little Truth..." A popular saying states that one can walk the length and breadth of the whole world with the Truth. The Baal Shem accepted this, since the Truth is knocked about everywhere on earth"

A Passion For Truth - Abraham Joshua Heschel

Confucius Didn't Say That! : The Book Edition

Welcome to my second post of Confucius Didn't Say That! 

My first post is here, so be polite and read that one first.

Please keep in mind, this is my way of deconstructing these quotes. One can simply look up if Confucius said any of this garbage in the Analects, The Great Learning or The Doctrine of the Mean but that would make for a short blog post, wouldn't it?

Ya know, I like to read and because I am a nerd, I prefer non-fiction. I just love learning for the sake of learning.  So, when I saw this "non-quote" on good ol' "Brainy Quote" and I decided it was time to tackle it on the blog:


You cannot open a book without learning something. -   Confucius 

This quote is everywhere on the web and not just Brainy Quote, so let's explore why Confucius didn't say it!

Look, I know it's pretty low-hanging fruit if you know a little bit about history. 

I'm going to be a bit of a nitpick. In the first place, paper wasn't even invented to the 2nd century AD, so "books" as we know it, weren't invented until well after that date, and even by then Confucius had been dead for about 600 years. 

I know you might be thinking I'm a stickler here because in the Analects, Confucius does refer to books. In fact, he often refers to one of the Five Classics, The Book of Odes. He encourages his disciples to read, recite and act upon its principles: 

[13:5] The Master said: “You can recite the 300 poems from the Book of Odes, but when you try to use them in administration, they are not effective, and in handling the outerlying regions, you cannot apply them, then even though you know a lot, what good is it?”

So, of course there were "books" in Confucius' time but they were likely on bamboo.  And this brings me to the second point about how we know this quote is not from Confucius' time.

The larger and more important point should be made about "reading culture" or "book culture". It simply didn't exist in the ancient world.  Even if a printing press was transported via time machine into the ancient world, the percent of people that could have read (and maybe more importantly, understand these books) was infinitesimally small. Even today, some estimate that only half the population of China are functionally literate. 

In the 5th century BCE, in China, I would guesstimate that around 5% of the general population would be literate. Maybe even upwards of 10% if you're feeling generous.  I  would also wager there would be an additional amount of people who could read some or a little for business purposes but the masses would be illiterate. The idea that a majority of people in a nation could be literate, reading any number of books would have been astounding to Confucius! In ancient times, even if you could read, you likely didn't own any (or many) books at all because they would be so expensive! 

Besides the technicality difficulties with the quote, the entire tone doesn't jibe with Confucius' beliefs or life. The purpose is to inspire or encourage people to read.  Confucius did not intend his teachings to be for a general audience, in fact, he had no idea any of his ideas would be recorded at all!  All of the work attributed to him was written by Confucian philosophers, likely over a hundred years after his death. 

 I also think Confucius' ideas of what would be appropriate for people to read would be very restrictive to say the least  (The Book of Odes will never be on the New York Times Best Seller List).  I don't think Confucius would think one could read, The Hunger Games and learn anything useful for one's character.  

Confucius's main audience was (or at least his aim and hope) was to reach government leaders or at least those that would one day hold a government position.  His hope was that in doing so, he would help the leaders bring about a new "Golden Era" based on the learning and ethics from the past. According to Confucius, all the answers were in the past, waited to be remembered and implemented. At worst, his expected audience would be other scholars and educated men of the day.   

One might imagine the quote isn't supposed to be for a general audience but I  find that doubtful. Confucius's sayings were hardly so basic or "on the nose" as this proverb is.  

Confucius didn't say this fake quote but there are a few quotes about learning that might suffice to substitute for its general theme. I found two somewhat similar quotes. The first is edited for length, while the second reveals his disgust for a lack of reading. All quotes in this post are from the Analects. 

[8:13] The Master said: “Be of unwavering good faith and love learning..."  


[11:23] Zi Lu got Zi Gao installed as Prefect of Bi. The Master said: “You are damaging someone's son.” Zi Lu said: “There are people and there are national altars (to be administered). Why should it be necessary to read books to be regarded as learned.” The Master said: “This is why I don't like glib people.”

It's also important to note that Confucius wasn't all about "learning for the sake of learning". For Confucian philosophers, there should be no separation between learning from self-cultivation.  

He was always one of those the "world's going to hell in a hand basket" type of guys, here we have a grumpy Confucius moment:   

[14:24] The Master said: “The ancient scholars studied for their own improvement. Modern scholars study to impress others.”

While many would emphasize actions over that of study or knowledge, in the next quote, Confucius reverses that expectation.  Confucius believed that without study (and of course, by "studying" he meant studying the books he deemed worthy of study) our actions will suffer accordingly. 

[17:6] The Master said: “You, have you heard the six phrases about the six distortions?” You answered that he hadn't. “Then stay a moment,” Confucius said, “and I will tell you.”

If you love being kind to others, but don't like to study, then your kindness will be distorted into simplicity.

If you love wisdom, but don't like to study, then your wisdom will be distorted into aimlessness.

If you love trustworthiness, but don't like to study, then your trust will be distorted into harm.

If you love candor, but don't like to study, your candor will be distorted into rudeness.

If you love boldness, but don't like to study, your boldness will be distorted into unruliness.

If you love persistence, but don't like to study, your persistence will be distorted into rashness.

So, there you have it, for Confucius, books were important but never for their own sake and always in the service of cultivating wisdom and morality. 

If Confucius didn't say it, then where's it from? 

Well, that's a good question. The first 5-7 pages of Google attributed the quote to Confucius. After more poking around I finally found some folks stating it is an "Irish proverb". Later, after even more digging, I also found others attributing the quote as a "Chinese Proverb". This book (published in 1898) has it recorded as a Chinese proverb this is also mentioned by several other books published in the 20th century . So, someone, somewhere likely associated it with the Chinese but mistakenly attributed it to Confucius. This is as far down the rabbit hole as I need to go.  If you care to dig further, be my guest!

Honestly, this proverb isn't very good, no matter who said it. 

Although it might make for a great quote for your local schools' "Summer Reading Program" handout, I find the quote rings false.  People read all the time and don't learn a thing!

Many students in my classes read the class materials and some refuse to learn. You know, one trite proverb deserves another, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink."

Finally, and more importantly, Confucius would remind us that we might "know" lots of things but it's useless if we don't "use" it to cultivate righteousness in ourselves and others.

Belief, Knowledge and Yoda

Yoda uses "The Force" to lift the X-Wing out of the swampy bog. The spacecraft floats above the water and Yoda guides it with his hand, gently placing the spacecraft to the ground. Luke utters in disbelief, “I don’t believe it.” “That is why you fail” replies Yoda. - From The Empire Strikes Back

"If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe." - Soren Kierkegaard


Believing is never as easy as it seems in abstract. The whole idea of believing in a God seems easy and most of all, well, neat and tidy. However, in real life you might find yourself awake at night wondering if this is all there is to life. For all I know we might be floating around in space, helpless, small and living meaningless lives.

In my small time here on earth I have learned that it's easier to let go of the answers - to let go of the assumptions and knowledge I have about life, god, belief, etc. I can't figure it all out and I don't need to. When we put God in a box (like Luke Skywalker or a person taking the opposite position of Kierkegaard) we will fail (in part because we are human). It's not about knowing but trusting.


“I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." – Jesus (MT 17:20)


Jesus says even the smallest of seeds of faith will do great things. The beginning of every journey begins with one step. I believe that to be true and one day hope to live it to its fullest extent.