Crashing into the Truth
CRASH! A truck slams into the rear end of a car that has stopped at a busy intersection. The dent in the car attests to the fact that the accident has occurred. The crash is truth because of the fact that the damage is tangible and therefore is known.
A woman gets out of the car, and a man gets out of the truck. Each has his or her own perception of what has happened. The man believes the woman is at fault for stopping short and not giving him enough time to react and brake. The woman, however, believes the man is the cause of the accident because he should have been prepared to stop. Four pedestrians witness the accident from their perspectives. They agree that the accident was caused by the woman. What is the truth? An accident happened. But who caused it? The consensus is that the woman is at fault. The majority’s perception is accepted as truth and becomes the reality. Truth then is what one believes or perceives as true; it is also what the majority believes until proven otherwise.
The next day, the police view a surveillance camera monitoring the intersection. The new evidence unearths a new fact about the accident. The video clearly shows the truck driver texting as he approached the intersection. The woman stops as the light turns red, but the man doesn’t see the light change because he is looking down. This fact is now known. Therefore, the truth is also that the man is at fault. But is the perceived reality of the majority not the truth? Just because the man was texting does not mean that the woman did not abruptly stop. Perhaps there are two truths.
Truth can be difficult to assess. If truth is not tangible, like the dent in the bumper, it exists in the eye of the beholder. The unknown and the perceptions of others, especially the consensus of the majority, while often correct, can sometimes stand in the way of truth. Yet, there is no denying that truth can exist; a car accident happened.
