Two of Our Revealing Metaphors About Truth
They are in opposition. We struggle without resolving them.
One of our key metaphors about truth is seeing things from both sides. Perhaps “both sides” reflects how when two people or two groups get in an argument, we find ourselves taking sides. We assume our side is right, and the other side wrong.
So perhaps we should expand the “both sides” metaphor to “all sides.” This allows for more sides than just two. Sometimes this gives us more options than “the lesser of two evils.” It gives us more opportunities to be truly objective — to see crucial grays between black and white — although of course we sometimes get only two sides to choose from.
The other key metaphor is altitude. This metaphor is expressed in two ways. We can look at things in the big picture — from a “30,000 feet altitude.” Or we see the devil is in the details, and we can get “down in the weeds.”
When I think about truth, the “altitude” metaphor looks better than “all sides.” Why? Because it comports better with the values we hold about truth and objectivity as norms — as goals and guide-stars for our lives.
A case for “altitude”
Both metaphors are spatial. If we think of an issue as a point in space, then both metaphors imply Cartesian (x/y/z) coordinates. “All sides” are expressed in x and y. “Altitude” is expressed in z.
In both cases, there are an infinite number of “perspectives” possible — an infinity of x/y points, and an infinity of z points.
If we think of an issue as an object — like a tree or a diamond — our view of the object changes as we circle it. Take photos of a tree from different sides, show your photos to a person far away, and ask them if all the photos are of one tree. That person might struggle to decide. The photos all look different from one another.
Walk around a diamond and with every step, a different set of facets will shine. If you hadn’t ever seen a diamond before, you could think the facet you’re looking at at the moment is the brightest. It might take a minute to discover the diamond looks equally good from all sides.
Similarly, what an object looks like is different at every altitude. A city looks very different at 1,000 feet than at 30,000 feet. You see a lot of buildings at 1,000 feet, and you see something more like a gray gritty smear at 30,000 feet.
However, many of us, due to past experience, are more familiar with the effects of changing altitude. The general way the sight of a city changes between low and high altitude is more or less the same for every city of roughly equivalent size. We can visualize with some degree of accuracy what many things will look from different altitudes .
Further, with the “altitude” metaphor, the x/y coordinates of the issue are fixed. Whatever altitude we are at, we all know we are looking at the same issue. What I’m thinking of is how many times I’ve sat in the middle of arguments — even friendly discussions — and thought “these people aren’t in agreement about the question they are trying to answer — they might not even realize they are trying to answer different questions.”
“You got an hour?”
Whichever metaphor we choose, we probably all agree it’s good to look at issues from different altitudes and from different directions. That will help us be more objective about the issue.
However, if truth is a norm of ours, that begs the question “how much time and energy should we put into exploring different perspectives?” I noted earlier there are an infinite number of both x/y coordinates and z coordinates. The number of different perspectives we can take is constrained by our time and energy resources.
In that light, there are more x/y coordinates than z coordinates. Having fewer coordinates to consider makes an altitude analysis more resource-efficient.
“We have to make a decision!”
Further, if truth is our norm, and we are trying to solve a problem, that still leaves the question “what is the best solution?”
The “best” solution initially depends on how we define “best” — how pragmatic, how principled, how ideological, how rational, how empirical, how passionate, how compassionate we want to be. Which of these norms do we adhere to?
Our disagreement over what’s the “best” solution is often a function of different people tending to always elevate certain norms above others (as one finds in marriages).
The “altitude” metaphor helps refocus on “what issue are we trying to address?” Going back to the city example, consider how different altitudes provide different views.
Consider a problem you are trying to solve in your city. Rampant excessive growth? That might be most visible at 2,500 feet. Dirty trash-filled streets? Maybe best at 500 feet.
In short, maybe the “best” altitude to find the “best” solution is the altitude that gives you the “best” view of the problem. To be sure, this is a huge generalization — after all, what’s the “best” altitude for assessing ugly architecture in skyscrapers? Probably different views from different distances and angles are required.
Let’s test this generalization with a couple of real-world examples.
Touching the third rail (!)
The easier one, imho, is politics — the choice between Dem and GOP candidates for president. At ground level, you see your dissatisfaction. From the sky, you see the effects of public policy. You tend to prefer Trump if you’re focused on what you’re unhappy about. You tend to prefer Biden if you’re focused on what policies will address the causes of people’s dissatisfaction.
Since for the most part a president only shapes policy, it’s often best to vote for a candidate based on their policies — and the effectiveness of those policies — because that’s most impactful way a president can address your dissatisfaction. For instance, consider “build the wall” versus “rebuild our industry.” Which has been and/or will do the most good?
The harder example is the economy. If you ask people around you, they’ll likely say the economy sucks. If you look at the numbers, they mostly say the economy is doing well. The thing is, if you ask people, it depends on who you ask. And if you look at numbers, it depends on which numbers you look at. It’s not clear we look at the most determinative numbers. To be able to measure the “goodness” of the economy, there needs to be a connection between numbers and people.
For example, what is a better measure of the economy — people’s wealth? people’s financial security? But to my knowledge, we don’t have a well-established measure for financial security. So, if that was our measure, how would we really know how the economy is doing?
In conclusion
This discussion of truth metaphors is based on ideas developed and presented in the “truth units” articles accessible here:
To summarize the truth units idea in a spatial metaphor, reality is the extent of x/y/z space. Any x,y,z point in this space is an object. The object of your intention is always set to “0” — the point of origin. You — meaning your perspective — is at the point x,y,z shown in the illustration below. The line between the “0” point of origin and your x,y,z is truth.
In other words, truth is not a thing — not one point or another. Rather, it’s the relationship between an object and your view of it.
We talk about “the truth” and “your truth.” In a spatial metaphor, the truth is all points x/y/z space — a monad — not a point in space. Your truth is what you see from your x/y/z point. You can see all x/y/z space, but because it’s a monad, seeing everything is seeing nothing.
When you look at something, you make it the object of your intention, you see it from your perspective. The view of it from your perspective — the line between you and what you are looking at — is the only coherent meaning of “truth” in the context of human cognition. That specific line is one “truth unit.” To be cognizant of truth units is to adhere to the Socratic ideal — “the unexamined life is not worth living” — and to work to “align” perspectives to further social understanding and cooperation.
