Stop Saying This

“There is no such thing as truth.”  

  

Before we can begin our study of vanilla ethical principles this phrase must be suspended from our vocabulary immediately, remaining only to denounce those who utter it. Sure, propositions such as, “there is no such thing as truth,” and its variants seem innocent at first. Maybe you heard it as a response in a debate and it felt edgy and exhilarating, your first exposure to someone fighting the powers that be. Then, in a tight spot in an argument you surprisingly found yourself saying it to deflate the tension, only discovering later that (gasp) you actually believe it. Wherever you are on this progression, cease and desist.   

  

Self-Referential Incoherence  

  

To understand why, “there is no such thing as truth” is troublesome, a brief overview of self-referential incoherence is necessary. Self-referential incoherence (when applied to propositions) is a proposition that must be false due to its very claim. For instance, if I were to say, “I am not speaking” then I would clearly be wrong because I had to speak in order to assert that I am not speaking. Or, “all claims have four words” is false because that claim itself had five.   

  

With this quick background, it is plain to see that the proposition, “there is no such thing as truth” is false, because it claims to be true! It is self referentially incoherent. This trick also applies to variants, “we can’t know anything for sure," "nothing is absolute," and "there is no right and wrong,” for they claim knowledge, absoluteness, and rightness.  A critic may say that these statements of radical ignorance are not asserting a universal objective truth, but if that be the case then they are no more binding than someone’s ice cream flavor of preference (i.e. vanilla).  

  

Hubris and Science  

  

Often a persistent opponent may suggest that affirming the existence of truth is a sign of arrogance or hubris. “How dare you claim to know a truth!” Ironically, both sides are making truth claims of equal gravity. One claims that it is true that there is no truth, the other claims that it is true that there is truth. The difference between the two being that one is immediately falsified when asserted. So, the charge of arrogance will not stick, without also being applied to the accuser. Once this equality of arrogance is demonstrated, an opponent may be more willing to see that arrogance really bears no consequence on the validity of a claim.

  

Those that hold that the scientific method in high esteem can also fall victim to self-referential incoherence if they are not careful. For example, the claim, “the only way to determine truth is the scientific method” is itself a truth claim whose rightness or wrongness can’t be verified by the scientific method. This is good news for academic fields who don’t primarily use the scientific method such as mathematics, geometry, and ethics. In later posts, other methods of obtaining knowledge, such as deduction or induction will be discussed at length.    

  

Socratic Paradox  

  

Perhaps the most famous use of a self-referentially incoherent statement is attributed to the classical Greek Philosopher Socrates in his Apologia (Greek for defense speech). The Socratic Paradox is formulated as, “I know one thing, that I know nothing.” Socrates believed the oracle of Delphi called him wisest among men because only he was aware of the depth of his own ignorance. In this paradox, he simultaneously claims to know that he knows nothing, thus falsifying his claim to ignorance.   

Lucky for Socrates, this form of the paradox does not seem to exist anywhere in Plato’s writings about him. The closest statement being that “I was conscious that I knew nothing at all” in reference to his examinations of the artisans, a far cry from the ignorance in the paradox. Indeed, this radical claim of ignorance would be strange considering that Socrates later claims that to sentence him to death would do greater damage to the jurors than it would to himself.   

  

Quite a claim for someone who knows nothing.